0* .»A1% *> 



~>4ff. 



4>^ 






>' 





*w* *a* \>/ .'«'-' v** -i 



,0 



/\ 


























THE 



GOSPEL PLAN 



OF 



SALVATION. 



BY 



T. W. BRENTS. 



; Men and brethren, what shall we do ? " — Acts ii : 37. 
Lord, what wilt thou have me to do ? " — Acts ix : 6. 
' Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? "—Acts xvi : 3°. 



Hi ' 



CINCINNATI: 4 

BOSWORTH, CHASE & HALL, PUBLISHERS, 

180 Elm Street. 
1874. 



f\ K 



&& 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by 

T. W. BRENTS, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



The Library 
of Congress 

WASHINGTON 



PREFACE. 



A wise man has said, " Of making many books there is no end; and much 
study is a weariness to the flesh." Why, then, should we add another to the 
"many books" already before the public? It has now been all of fifteen 
years since we conceived the plan, and began the preparation of this work, 
only bestowing upon it, however, such fragments of time as we could spare 
from other labors. Sometimes we rested a month, sometimes a year, feeling 
by no means sure that we would ever finish the work, but intending to do so 
if permitted to live until our head became sufficiently gray. Some portions 
were occasionally given to the public as contributions to the Gospel Advo- 
cate and in tracts, in the hope that they might accomplish some good, though 
the entire work should never be published. A very general demand for the 
completion and publication of the book soon came from those who read the 
portions published; but we have deemed it prudent to "hasten leisurely" 
lest we might prematurely publish something of which we would be ashamed 
in maturer years. When we passed our fiftieth year we engaged the services 
of the publisher, and now, on our fifty-first anniversary birthday, we are writ- 
ing a preface, and yet we are not quite sure that we are old enough to publish 
a book on a theme so transcendantly important as the " Gospel Plan of Sal- 
vation." Our highest ambition is to honor the name of our Master, and direct 
sinners in the way of life ; hence we would not, for any earthly consideration, 
publish a sentence known to be untrue. We wish our book to live when we 
shall be sleeping the years away. Yes, and live it will. This is the frightful 
thought. Live it will. A mistake from the pulpit may soon be forgotten — 
should we make a mistake in an article furnished a paper or periodical, it 
may be lost or worn out, and soon pass away; but a book will live on, when 
he who wrote k lives only in the work left behind him. How important 
it is, then, that every thought penned concerning The Gospel Plan of 
Salvation should be tried "as by fire" that not a single error should escape 
the refining crucible of Holy Writ, and make its way into the permanent 
literature of the age. Had this responsibility been rightly appreciated, surely 
many of the books now on the market would never have met the public eye. 
• But there is another side to the picture. While it is unquestionably true 
that much mischief has been done by the publication of error, it is equally 
true that much good has been done, and may yet be done, by publishing the 

iii 



IV PREFACE. 

truth. Ceasing to publish truth will never arrest the publication of error. 
It will continue to be published as long as man lives in a tenement of clay ; 
hence the best that may be done is the publication of truth with which, in 
some degree, to counteract its influence. But for this the world would have 
been to-day overwhelmed in the stygian waters of infidelity and idolatry; 
hence we would not erase a single impression made by any truth ever given 
to man by any one who has written before us. It is no part of our object to 
supersede any work that has appeared among us ; rather would we be an 
humble co-worker with all lovers of truth in pointing sinners to the " Lamb 
of God who taketh away the sin of the world." 

Every writer has a taste and a style as peculiarly his own as are his fea- 
tures or his temperament ; hence no two are likely to select exactly the same 
field of labor, or adopt the same method of arranging the material used by 
each respectively. While others have written upon some, perhaps all, the 
subjects treated in this work, we are not aware of any single book filling the 
place which this is designed to occupy. While it is directly addressed to the 
alien, we hope it will aid the young disciple in obtaining a more extensive 
knowledge of the " form of doctrine " by which he was made free from sin : 
especially will young preachers find it a valuable compend of argzunent and 
rritical authority in ellucidation of many subjects which they will find it 
necessary to examine. They will here find an amount of authority which 
would cost them much labor and money were they compelled to get it from 
the original authors quoted by us. Many of the works are out of print, so 
that only second-hand copies can be had at all, and these only by importa- 
tion at fabulous cost. We found it necessary to pay ten, fifteen, and even as 
high as twenty-five dollars for works from which to obtain the author's defini- 
tion of a single word, which will be found in this work. Many of these 
authors define in Latin which could not be read by the common English 
scholar if he had them ; here he will find only the English translation of the 
author's Latin, which all can read and easily understand. 

We have made no effort at elegance of style, seeking rather to clearly and 
forcibly express as much truth as possible in the space occupied. We dare 
not hope that every thought is expressed in the best possible manner ; but he 
who reads to be benefited will likely understand us, and for such readers 
only were our labors intended. If we have not spoken as the oracles of 
God speak, then prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. By the 
word of God we are ever willing that our teaching may be tried. It alone 
can build us up and give us a*n inheritance among them who are sanctified; 
hence to it we commend our readers in the fear of Him who will judge us 
all according to our works. • 

T. W. BRENTS. 

Richmond, Tenn., February 10, 1874. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 

CHAPTER I. 
Predestination 7- 14 

CHAPTER II. 

Election and Reprobation ... . . . . , .15-49 

CHAPTER III. 
Calvinistic Proofs Examined 50- 91 

CHAPTER IV. 

The Foreknowledge of God . . . . . . . 92-108 

CHAPTER V 
Hereditary Depravity 109-145 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Establishment of the Church 146-166 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Identity of the Church . . 167-188 

CHAPTER VIII. 
The New Birth 189-208 

CHAPTER IX. 
Faith 209-233 

(v) 



VI CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER X. 
Repentance , 234-248 

CHAPTER XI. 
The Confession . . 249-263 

CHAPTER XII. 
Baptism, what is it ? 264-392 

CHAPTER XIII. 
Who should be Baptized 393-47^ 

CHAPTER XIV. 
The Design of Baptism 479-570 

CHAPTER XV. 
The Holy Spirit 571-661 



THE 

GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



CHAPTER I. 

PREDESTINATION. 



ARE you "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, 
and strangers from the covenants of promise, hav- 
ing no hope, and without God in the world ? " If so, we 
propose to assist you in arriving at a knowledge of your 
duty, in order that you may become citizens of God's 
government on the earth — children of God's family — mem- 
bers of Christ's body, the Church — that you may escape 
the punishment of the damned, and secure for yourselves 
the favor of God and the bliss of heaven. But while our 
primary object is to benefit the alien, it is hoped that a 
careful reading of our book will be interesting and profit- 
able to the babes in Christ. They should not regard them- 
selves as fully grown at birth, and therefore cease their 
investigations ; but they should desire and feed upon the 
sincere milk of the Word, that they may grow to the stature 
of men and women fully grown in the kingdom and pa- 
tience of Jesus Christ. Knowledge is one of the adjuncts 
of faith: "Besides this, giving all diligence, add to your 
faith virtue ; and to virtue, knowledge." 2 Pet. i : 5. "Where- 
fore I will not be negligent to put you always in remem- 
brance of these things, though ye know them, and be 
established in the truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as 

(7) 



8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in 
remembrance ; knowing that shortly I must put off this 
my tabernacle." Vers. 12, 13. 

But before we proceed to look for the conditions upon 
which aliens may secure the favor of our Heavenly Father, 
it may be well to inquire whether or not there is any thing 
they can do that will be conducive to this end. There are 
prominent doctrines taught by those for whose learning 
and piety we have the most profound respect, which, if true, 
render it wholly unnecessary, it seems to us, to spend time 
or labor in instructing the sinner with regard to his duty 
either to God or man. 

That we may place these doctrines properly before the 
mind of the reader, without any reasonable probability of 
misrepresenting them, we beg permission to make a few 
quotations from the fountain whence they flow. 

" God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy 
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain 
whatsoever comes to pass." Presbyterian Confession of 
Faith, chap, iii, sec. 1. To the same import we have the 
answer to Question 12 (Larger Catechism), as follows : 
" God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the coun- 
sel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his 
own glory, unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes 
to pass, especially concerning angels and men." 

Now, if the doctrine here set forth is true, we think it 
impossible for man to err. Whatever he does, is in keep- 
ing with and brought about by God's fore-ordination or 
decree, and therefore can not be wrong. If he does any 
thing — it matters not what — whether good or bad — if God 
has ordained every thing, He has ordained that thing. If it 
comes to pass that a man lies, God has not only ordained 
that he should lie, but He has unchangeably ordained it. 
If it comes to pass that a man steals, God has unchange- 



PREDESTINATION. 9 

ably ordained that, too. If it comes to pass that a man kills 
his neighbor, God has unchangeably ordained that, also. 
It did come to pass that Cain killed his brother : why, then, 
did God put a curse upon him for it ? It was not only in 
accordance with the most wise and holy counsel of His will, 
but He had freely and unchangeably ordained that Cain 
should do the very thing for which He cursed him ! ! ! Can 
any sane man believe it ? God has said : " Thou shalt not 
kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." 
Ex. xx : 13-16. As God has thus plainly forbidden things 
which do come to pass, it can not be true that He has un- 
changeably ordained them. That God should unchange- 
ably ordain that a certain thing should come to pass, and 
at the same time positively forbid it, is an inconsistency 
entirely incompatible with His divine character, especially 
when we add to it the thought that He threatens the guilty 
with endless punishment. Surely He, whose laws ever 
bear the impress of that infinite justice, goodness, love, and 
mercy which characterize their Author, would not punish 
His dependent creature man in the rude flames of an 
angry hell forever for doing that which He had unchange- 
ably ordained that he should do : " The Lord is good to 
all : and his tender mercies are over all his works." Ps. 
cxlv : 9. "The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy 
in all his works." Ver. 17. Therefore when the murderer 
stains his hands in the blood of his fellow, he can not take 
shelter under the doctrine of the creed by saying that God, 
in ordaining every thing that ccmes to pass, ordained that 
he should kill his neighbor, and thereby avoid the respon- 
sibility of the act and the punishment due his crime. It 
is true that the makers of the creed disclaim the conse- 
quences of the doctrine, saying, " Yet so as thereby neither 
is God the author of sin ;" but they have failed to show us 



10 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

how His character may be vindicated from such a charge 
in harmony with such a doctrine ; and we are unable to 
see how God is not the author of what He has unchange- 
ably ordained should come to pass. If He has unchange- 
ably ordained every thing that comes to pass, then how can 
man change God's unchangeable ordinance ? and if he can 
not change it, surely no blame can attach to him for any 
thing he does. If God unchangeably ordained that a 
certain man, on a certain day, should do a certain thing, 
then there is no power left to man not to do the thing ; for 
were he to avoid doing it, he would have changed God's 
unchangeable decree, and therefore had more power to 
change than God had to enforce. Is any one prepared to 
assume such a position as this ? The reader will please 
note the extent of the doctrine in controversy. It is not 
that God has from all eternity ordained, but that he has 
unchangeably ordained ; not some things, but whatsoever 
cometh to pass — every thing. Surely, the ordinances or 
decrees of God are broken every day. He has ordained 
that men shall not kill, yet they do kill. He has ordained 
that they shall not steal, yet they do steal. He has or- 
dained that they shall not bear false witness, yet they 
swear falsely every day. God compels no man to keep His 
ordinances, but He will visit upon him merited punish- 
ment if he does not keep them. Paul tells us that " the 
powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore re- 
sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God : and they 
that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Rom. 
xiii : i, 2. How can any one successfully resist that which 
God has unchangeably ordained ? God said, "Yet forty 
days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Jonah iii : 4. 
Here was a positive decree or ordinance of God that did 
not come to pass, for " God saw their works, that they 
turned from their evil way ; and God repented of the evil, that 



PREDESTINATION. 1 1 

he had said that he would do unto them ; and he did it nof." 
Ver. 10. Was not this decree changeable ? God said to 
Hezekiah, "Set thy house in order; for thou shalt die, and 
not live." 2 Kings xx : i. Here was another positive 
ordinance which was changeable, for Hezekiah turned his 
face to the wall and prayed, after which God said to him : 
" I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears ; behold, I 
will heal thee : on the third day thou shalt go up unto the 
house of the Lord, and I will add unto thy days fifteen 
years." Vers. 5, 6. Here was a decree concerning Heze- 
kiah's death, which was changed, and his life prolonged 
fifteen years, and the change induced by his prayers and 
tears. 

When David was at Keilah, he inquired of the Lord, say- 
ing : " Will Saul come down as thy servant hath heard ? 
O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. 
And the Lord said, He will come down. Then said 
David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into 
the hand of Saul ? And the Lord said, They will deliver 
thee up. Then David and his men, which were about six 
hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went 
whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that 
David was escaped from Keilah ; and he forbare to go 
forth." 1 Samuel xxiii : 11-13. When David left Keilah, 
Saul turned his pursuit in the direction of David's flight, 
and did not go to Keilah at all. Had God decreed, from 
all eternity, whatsoever comes to pass, it occurs to us that 
He would have answered David differently; perhaps 
something after the following style : " No, David, Saul will 
not come to Keilah, nor will the men of Keilah deliver you 
into his hands, for I have unchangeably ordained that you 
shall leave Keilah, and Saul will turn his pursuit in the 
direction to which you go." This was what did come to 
pass, and certainly God did not tell David what he had 



12 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

fore-ordainecl to be untrue. Had David remained at 
Keilah, Saul would have gone there ; hence circumstances, 
and not immutable decrees, controlled this event, even as 
they do most others. Other examples might be given, but 
these are enough to show that God has issued decrees that 
never have come to pass, nor never will come to pass. 
Now, if it is true that God fore-ordained every thing that 
comes to pass, then it follows that He fore-ordained the 
reformation of the Ninevites, the prayers of Hezekiah, and 
the flight of David from Keilah ; hence when He said, 
" Yet forty days> and Nineveh shall be overthrown," He had 
fore-ordained, before time began, that it should not be over- 
thrown. When He told Hezekiah to set his house in 
order, for he should die and not live, He had fore-ordained 
that he should live fifteen years longer. And when He 
told David that Saul would come to Keilah, and that the 
men of Keilah would deliver him and his men to Saul, 
was it not telling him that events should happen which 
He had unchangeably ordained to be otherwise ? How 
such a theory is to be harmonized with the word of the 
Lord, we know not. 

By the mouth of his prophet, the Lord said (Jer. xviii : 
7-10) : "At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, 
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, 
and to destroy it ; if that nation, against whom I have 
pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil 
that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I 
shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a king- 
dom, to build and to plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, 
that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, 
wherewith I said I would benefit them." Here we see the 
same law obtains as to nations that we have seen applied 
to cities and individuals. If they, having done evil, turn 
from the evil, then the Lord proposes to turn from the 



PREDESTINATION. 1 3 

evil which He purposes doing to them ; on the contrary, if 
they persist in disobedience, they will suffer the conse- 
quences, even to extermination. Hence circumstances 
have ever varied God's dealings with men. 

Again : "God saw that the wickedness of man was great 
in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts 
of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented 
the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it 
grieved him at his heart." Gen. vi : 5, 6. Now, if the 
Lord fore-ordained every thing that comes to pass, He fore- 
ordained every thing the antediluvians did : why, then, 
should He grieve over their wickedness, when every act 
was but the consummation of His own immutable and 
eternal decree ? Really, it would seem like God grieving 
over His own folly. 

The Lord said that the children of Judah had " built 
again the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of 
the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in 
the fire ; which I commanded them not, neither came it 
into my heart." Jer. vii : 31. "They have built also the 
high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt 
offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, 
neither came it into my mind." Jer. xix: 5. If God fore- 
ordained every thing, He fore-ordained these things, for 
they came to pass ; yet He says He did not command 
them, nor speak them, neither came they into His mind. 
Will the advocates of the doctrine please to enlighten the 
world as to how God fore-ordained tilings which never en- 
tered His mind? But we will not press the argument fur- 
ther. If the doctrine be true, the whole theory of sin, ac- 
countability, rewards, and punishments, in harmony with 
justice and mercy, is to us utterly incomprehensible. 
Every act of man is but carrying out the immutable pur- 
poses of Jehovah ; and when He gives a man a law, He 



14 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

does it expressly that he may violate it, so as to furnish a 
pretext for the punishment previously ordained for him. 
Take the sin of Adam as an example : God made him and 
placed him under law. It came to pass that he violated 
this law. He ate of the fruit whereof God commanded 
him not to eat. If God fore-ordained whatsoever comes to 
pass, then of course He fore-ordained that he should eat. 
Hence Adam was in a strait between the law and the un- 
changeable ordination or decree. It came to pass that he 
eat; therefore God ordained that he should eat. The law 
said he should not eat. One or the other must be broken. 
He must eat, and violate the law ; or not eat, and change 
God's unchangeable decree. This was impossible: hence 
to eat and violate the law was a necessity ; and yet God 
would punish him for it ! ! Surely, such a theory is at 
war with the Bible — with all reason and common sense — 
as well as a reproach upon the character of our Heavenly 
Father. But able and learned men have taught it, good 
and true men believe it ; therefore we must treat it respect- 
fully, yet examine it fairly, patiently, and thoroughly. 



CHAPTER II. 

ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 

WE come now to examine the subject of Unconditional 
election and reprobation ; and that we may see the 
doctrine in its purity, we beg permission to quote again 
from the creed : " By the decree of God, for the manifes- 
tation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated 
unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlast- 
ing death. These angels and men thus predestinated and 
fore-ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, 
and their number is so certain and definite that it can not 
be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that 
are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of 
the world was laid, according to His eternal and immu- 
table purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure 
of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, 
out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight 
of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or 
any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes 
moving him thereunto." Confession of Faith, chap. 3, 
sees. 3, 4, 5. 

It is quite easy to see that the doctrine of unconditional 
election and reprobation is true if the doctrine of unchange- 
able fore-ordination obtains as to every thing that comes to 
pass, unless we find relief in the more ample folds of Uni- 
versalis™. If God has unchangeably fore-ordained what- 
soever comes to pass, then of course He has fore-ordained 

(is) 



1 6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

just who shall be saved, and who, if any, shall be lost; 
and if He has unchangeably fixed the destiny of every 
man before time began without any conditions whatever, 
then Calvinism or Universalism must be true. But we 
think we have seen that God did not so ordain every thing, 
and hence this doctrine can not support either of the oth- 
ers. If either stands at all, it must be proved by other 
testimony. For the present, then, we propose to inquire 
whether or not God has unconditionally and unchangeably 
fixed the destiny of a definite number of two classes — the 
elect and the reprobate. 

And first, we remark that the words elect, elected, elec- 
tion, reprobate, and reprobates, are Bible terms ; hence there 
must be a Bible doctrine concerning them. Elect means 
to choose; hence the elect of God are God's chosen. God has 
elected persons, families, nations, and bodies or organiza- 
tions in different ages of the world, for the benefit of his 
creatures, but the final salvation and happiness of the 
elected were by no means secured by their election. On 
the contrary, God's elect have to "work out their own 
salvation with fear and trembling." Phil, ii : 12. Hence 
in very many instances they have sinned and fallen far 
from the favor of God, and often forfeited the positions to 
which they were elected. But to comprehend the whole 
subject we must inquire who were elected and for what 
purposes ; then we may be able to see what effect, if any, 
their election had upon their final destiny. 

" Behold my servant, whom I uphold ; mine -elect, in 
whom my soul delighteth ; I have put my Spirit upon 
him ; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles ; he 
shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard 
in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the 
smoking flax shall he not quench : he shall bring forth 
judgment unto truth." Isa. xlii : 1-3. That the servant 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. \J 

of God here called His elect was Jesus the Christ may be 
seen by reference to Matt, xii : 17-21, where this proph- 
ecy is quoted by Jesus as fulfilled in himself. Surely, it 
will be admitted that Jesus was not elected to secure His 
own salvation, but to be the Saviour of men. " Wherefore 
also it is contained in Scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a 
chief corner-stone, elect, precious : and he that believeth 
on him shall not be confounded." 1 Pet. ii : 6. Here Jesus 
is represented as the elect corner-stone of the church, on 
whom others believe to their salvation. But we are more 
concerned in examining the election of men, as individuals, 
collective bodies, and nations. 

Abraham was elected of God to be the father of the 
faithful, in whose seed all families of the earth were to be 
blessed in Jesus Christ. Gal. iii : 16. But as Abraham 
had more sons than one, it was necessary that an election 
take place in his family, for Ishmael and Isaac could not 
both be the father of the family from which Jesus the prom- 
ised seed should come ; hence God said, " In Isaac shall thy 
seed be called." Gen. xxi : 12 ; Rom. ix : 7. Isaac had two 
sons, Esau and Jacob, both of whom could not be the father 
of the royal family ; hence God said, " Thou, Israel, art my 
servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham 
my friend." Isa. xli : 8. Jacob had twelve sons ; Judah 
was elected. And so election has been a necessity all the 
way from Abraham to Jesus the promised seed — not to 
benefit the elected exclusively, but to benefit the world 
through them. 

When God determined to deliver the children of Israel 
from Egyptian bondage, He elected Moses for their leader 
and lawgiver: "Therefore he said that he would destroy 
them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him." Ps. 
cvi : 23. But Aaron was elected as speaker for Moses ; 
hence " He sent Moses his servant and Aaron whom he 
2 



1 8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

had chose?i." Ps. cv : 26. Notwithstanding Moses and 
Aaron were elected — chosen of God to conduct the He- 
brews from Egypt to Canaan, a type of the final home of 
the righteous ; and Moses was the Jewish lawgiver, in this 
respect a type of Christ our lawgiver ; and Aaron was 
anointed high priest, in this respect a type of Christ our 
High Priest ; and he was permitted to enter the most holy 
place, which was typical of heaven, where Jesus our High. 
Priest hath for us entered — yet they both sinned, and in- 
curred the displeasure of God, in consequence of which 
neither of them were permitted to enter the land of Canaan, 
the type of the Christian's home in heaven. "And the 
Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, because ye believed 
me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Is- 
rael, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the 
land which I have given them." Num. xx: 12. Concern- 
ing this decree, Moses said : " The Lord was angry with me 
for your sakes, and sware that I should not go over Jordan, 
and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the 
Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance: but I must 
die in this land, I must not go over Jordan : but ye shall 
go over, and possess that good land." Deut. iv : 21, 22. 
After taking Moses to the top of Pisgah and shewing him 
the beauties of the land, the Lord said to him: "This is 
the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto 
Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed ; I have caused 
thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over 
thither. So Moses, the servant of the Lord died there in 
the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord." 
Deut. xxxiv : 4, 5. 

Aaron and his sons were not only elected, but conse- 
crated and anointed priests of God, and officiated in that 
most sacred office for themselves and the people. In the 
eighth chapter of Leviticus may be found an account of 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. I9 

the grand and sublime ceremony with which they were 
inducted into that holy office. Thus the male portion of 
a family were elected and inducted into the priesthood; 
and what became of them ? The Lord said : "Aaron shall 
be gathered unto his people, for he shall not enter into the 
land which I have given unto the children of Israel, be- 
cause ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah. 
Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto 
Mount Hor ; and strip Aaron of his garments, and put 
them upon Eleazar his son, and Aaron shall be gathered 
unto his people, and shall die there. And Moses did as the 
Lord commanded : and they went up into Mount Hor in 
sight of all the congregation. And Moses stripped Aaron 
of his garments and put them upon Eleazar his son ; and 
Aaron died there in the top of the mount." Num. xx : 
24 to 28. "Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took 
either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put 
incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, 
which he commanded them not. And there went out fire 
from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before 
the Lord." Lev. x: I, 2. Now, if the doctrine of eternal 
unconditional election and reprobation be true, to which 
class did Nadab and Abihu belong? The destiny of all 
being unalterably fixed before time began, it follows that 
these were of the eternally elect, or of the eternally repro- 
bate. Did God elect them of the non-elect, or eternally rep- 
robate, and anoint them priests to officiate in the taber- 
nacle, having previously determined upon their destruction, 
and unchangeably fore-ordained the wickedness for which 
He intended to kill them ? Or were they of the eternally 
elect, and their interest in heaven made sure before " the 
foundation of the world," and God killed them for wicked- 
ness which he had unchangeably fore-ordained they should 
do, that he might take them home to glory? Is it not 



20 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

more rational to conclude that God elected them, anointed 
and consecrated them priests, intending to be with and 
bless them as long as they were faithful to Him, and pun- 
ish them when they forsook Him ; and that their unhappy 
end was the result of their own voluntary rebellion against 
the law of the Lord ? 

God elected Saul to be the first king over Israel. He told 
Samuel how he might know him ; and having presented him 
to the people, " Samuel said to all the people, See ye him 
whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him 
among all the people ? And all the people shouted and said, 
God save the king." I Sam. x : 24. He not only elected 
him, but he gave him the spirit of prophecy, and when "a 
company of the priests met him, the Spirit of God came 
upon him, and he prophesied among them." 1 Sam. x: 10. 
Nor was this all, but he sacredly anointed him to reign 
over his people. "Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and 
poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not 
because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over 
his inheritance?" 1 Sam x: 1. The Lord was with and 
prospered him in battle, as long as he was faithful to Him, 
but when he disobeyed him, Samuel said : " Hath the Lord 
as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obey- 
ing the voice of the Lord ? Behold, to obey is better than 
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion 
is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity 
and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the 
Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king." 1 Sam. 
xv : 22, 23. Will the reader observe the fact that he was 
rejected, not because God had eternally reprobated him, 
or unchangeably fore-ordained his rejection, but because 
he rejected the word of the Lord. From all these examples 
we learn that when God elected any one to any position 
however important, it did not unconditionally secure for 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 21 

him an entrance into the climes of endless bliss, or even a 
continuance in the office to which he was elected ; but on 
the contrary the general principle is quite apparent that He 
blessed and prospered him as long as he continued faith- 
ful to His will, and failed not to punish and reject him 
when he rebelled against Him. 

Thus far we have seen individuals in the age of types 
and shadows elected to peculiar privileges, for the benefit 
of themselves and others; and we have seen many of the 
elect perish on account of their sins; and the time would 
fail us to record all the cases which illustrate these prin- 
ciples in the government of God ; we come now to look for 
the election of nations and bodies to religious promotion 
on the same principles. 

One of the first promises made to Abraham by the Lord 
was : " I will make of thee a great nation, and will bless 
thee, and make thy name great ; and thou shalt be a bless- 
ing ; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him 
that curseth thee : and in thee shall all families of the earth 
be blessed." Gen. xii : 2, 3. In due time God gave Abra- 
ham a son, Isaac, to whose wife Rebecca the Lord said : 
"Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people 
shall be separated from thy bowels ; and the one people 
shall be stronger than the other people ; and the elder 
shall serve the younger." Gen. xxv : 23. As we will have 
occasion to notice this passage again, it is sufficient here 
to remark that this was said to her concerning Jacob and 
Esau, as the representatives of two nations which were to 
descend from her through them, one of which was to be 
stronger than the other, and bear rule over it ; and this 
was "that the purpose of God according to election might 
stand." Rom. ix : 11. Thus we find that the descendants 
of Jacob were elected the national family of God ; hence he 
said : " O Jacob, my servant ; and Israel, whom I have 



22 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

chosen." Is. xliv: i. "For Jacob my servant's sake and 
Israel mine elect." Isa. xlv : 4. God changed the name of 
Abram to Abraham, because He made him the father of 
many nations. Gen. xvii: 5. He also changed the name 
of Jacob to Israel, saying : " Thy name shall be called no 
more Jacob, but Israel : for as a prince hast thou power 
with God and with men, and hast prevailed." Gen. xxxii : 28. 
Henceforth the descendants of Jacob were called the " chil- 
dren of Israel ;" and very often only Israel, the adopted 
name of their illustrious progenitor — an example of which 
Paul gives, Rom. x: 1 : "Brethren, my heart's desire and 
prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." 
These God clearly recognized as His people. When He 
appeared to Moses for the purpose of sending him to de- 
liver them, He said : " I have surely seen the affliction of 
my people which are in Egypt." Ex. iii : 7. And verse 10, 
he says: "Come now therefore, and I will' send thee unto 
Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the chil- 
dren of Israel out of Egypt." Moses said to them : " The 
Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron 
furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of in- 
heritance, as ye are this day." Deut. iv : 20. Again : " Be- 
cause he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed 
after them, and brought them out in his sight with his 
mighty power out of Egypt." Deut. iv: 37. "The Lord 
had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose 
their seed after them, even you above all people." Deut. 
x: 15. "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy 
God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people 
unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth." 
Deut xiv : 2. " For thou art an holy people unto the Lord 
thy God : the Lord thy God had chosen thee to be a special 
peopfe unto himself, above all people that are upon the 
face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 23 

you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than 
any people ; for ye were the fewest of all people : but be- 
cause the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the 
oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord 
brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you 
out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh 
king of Egypt." Deut. vii : 6-8. Though we are here 
to prove that those children of Israel were the elect people 
of God in that age of the world, yet in passing we may 
note the additional fact apparent in the last quotation, that 
He loved them, not because they were elected from all 
eternity as individuals ; nor did He elect them because He 
loved them personally " before the foundation of the world 
was laid," but because He loved their fathers and had en- 
tered into a covenant with them ; and He refers their 
election to a time when they had, not only an individual 
and personal, but a national existence, and were few in 
number compared with other nations, associating it with 
the time of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. We 
need not refer the reader to other recognitions of the 
Israelites as the national family of God, but it is neces- 
sary to our purpose that we note one other fact, which is, 
that they constituted the church in that dispensation ; hence 
says Stephen, concerning Moses: "This is he, that was in 
the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to 
him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers : who re- 
ceived the lively oracles to give unto us." Acts, vii: 38. 
Paul mentions some of the eminent privileges of these 
people : " Who are Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the 
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving 
of the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; 
whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh 
Christ came." Rom. ix: 4, 5. Next we would call the 
attention of the reader to the all-important fact that the 



24 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

same general principle characterized God's dealings with 
this elect national family, or typical church, that we have 
seen prominent in His dealings with elect individuals — 
namely, that He blessed and prospered them when they 
were faithful to His laws, and that He punished them, 
and finally exterminated them as a nation, for their 
wickedness. 

Soon after God delivered them from Egyptian bondage, 
He called Moses to Him and said : " Thus shalt thou say to 
the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel ; ye have 
seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bear you 
on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now there- 
fore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my cove- 
nant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above 
all people ; for all the earth is mine ; and ye shall be unto 
me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are 
the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of 
Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the 
people, and laid before their faces all these words which 
the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered 
together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will 
do." Ex. xix : 3-8. God prefaces this solemn covenant 
by calling the attention of the people to the wonderful ex- 
hibition of His power put forth in their salvation, and the 
destruction of their enemies ; and promises that they 
should be a peculiar treasure to Him on condition that 
they obey His voice, which on their part they solemnly 
promise to do. But they very soon forgot their obligations 
to God; hence "with many of them God was not well 
pleased ; for they were overthrown in the wilderness." 
I. Cor. x: 5. For their idolatrous worship of the calf 
made by Aaron, three thousand fell in one day. (Ex. xxxii : 
28.) For their fornication, twenty-four thousand died in 
the plague. (Num. xxv : 9). Twenty-three thousand of them 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 25 

died in one day. (i. Cor. x: 8.) For their murmuring against 
God, many of them were destroyed by serpents. (Num. xxi: 
6.) And for their crimes of various kinds, God abandoned 
them in their conflicts with the nations around them, until 
multiplied thousands were slain in battle, their cities were 
burned to ashes, and their homes made desolate, and 
strangers devoured their land in their presence. (Isa. i : 7.) 
They were taken captive into Babylon and kept there for 
seventy years. Thus did God afflict and scourge them as 
a father scourgeth his rebellious son, but they would not 
reform ; until finally He asks, " Why should ye be stricken 
any more? ye will revolt more and more." Isa. i : 5. Nor 
did He afflict them without warning, for He said to them : 
" If ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your 
children, and will not keep my commandments and my 
statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve 
other gods and worship them : then will I cut off Israel 
out of the land which I have given them ; and this house 
which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my 
sight, and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among 
all people." 1 Kings ix : 6, 7. Never was there a more 
faithful picture of human wretchedness than is here given 
of the present condition of this once elect and highly 
favored people of God. He has utterly destroyed them as 
a nation from the face of the earth. They are not only 
cut off from the country which God gave them to be a 
permanent inheritance, but they are scattered among 
the nations, until there is not a place on the globe 
where civilization has gone where straggling Jews may 
not be found ; and the very name Jew is a name of 
reproach to him who wears it — a "proverb and a byword 
among all people." And what was the condition set forth 
in this most solemn warning to them ? Was it, " If you 
are of the eternally reprobate?" Nay, verily, they were 
3 



26 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

God's own elect. But will it do to assume that, because 
there was no hell threatened in the Jewish law, these were 
merely temporal punishments inflicted upon God's elect, 
and hence he has taken, or will take them to heaven? 
Were there any others worse than these ? Before any one 
so assumes, let him remember that almost, perhaps quite, 
every known species of crime was practiced by these elect ; 
and if these whoremongers, idolaters and tempters of God 
were fit for heaven, then it must be true indeed that elec- 
tion, and not character, qualifies for that place. Before 
any one so assumes, let him further remember that these 
Jews, the elect of God, rejected and murdered the Lord 
of glory; and he said, "If ye believe not that I am he, 
ye shall die in your sins." John viii : 24. Notwithstand- 
ing the gospel was first preached to the Jews, and some 
of them believed on Christ as the promised Messiah, yet 
not one of the Jews can be found who, as a Jew, believes, 
to-day, that Jesus was or is the Christ, the Son of God. 
How then are they to be saved over his declaration that, 
" If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins ? " 
Are they to die in their sins, and be saved in their un- 
belief? He says, " He that believeth not shall be damned." 
Mark xvi: 16. 

Now, we would note the fact that the Jewish age was a 
typical age : the church in the wilderness was, in a sense, 
a type of the church of God ; Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, 
was, in a sense, a type of Christ our lawgiver ; Aaron, 
the Jewish high priest, was a type of Christ our High 
Priest ; the Jewish priests were types of Christians in the 
gospel age who are priests now. — Hence says Peter, " Ye 
also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy 
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to 
God by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. ii : 5. And again, verse 
9, he says, " But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest- 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 2J 

hood, a holy nation, a peculiar people." Then if these 
elect types, from the least to the greatest, both as individ- 
uals and as a body, had to be faithful to God or forfeit 
their election, may we not in the same way forfeit our elec- 
tion ? After telling us that " with many of them God 
was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the 
wilderness," Paul says : " These things were our examples, 
to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they 
also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of 
them ; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and 
drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit forni- 
cation, as some of them committed, and fell in one day 
three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, 
as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of ser- 
pents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also mur- 
mured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these 
things happened unto them for ensamples : and they are 
written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the 
world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he 
standeth take heed lest he fall." i Cor. x: 5-12. We 
know not how the apostle could have given more conclu- 
sive proof that the number of the elect composing the 
church of God at Corinth, was liable to be diminished by 
apostasy than is here given. He tells them of the over- 
throw of many of the Jews, and mentions, specifically, the 
sins for which thousands of them fell, and tells them that 
these things happened to them as examples, and are writ- 
ten for our admonition ; "wherefore let him that thinketh 
he standeth take heed lest he fall." But why this admoni- 
tion, if the numbers of the elect and reprobate are so cer- 
tain and definite that they can neither be increased nor 
diminished ? Were this true, Paul's most solemn warn- 
ing to his brethren was a mere " rawhead and bloody 
bones," to alarm them when there was no danger, for 



28 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

none of them could fall ! And the creed is consistent with 
itself, if not with the Bible at this point ; for it says : 
" They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually 
called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor 
finally fall away from the state of grace ; but shall certainly 
persevere therein to the end and be saved. This perse- 
verance of the saints depends not upon their own free 
will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, 
flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the 
Father ; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of 
Jesus Christ ; the abiding of the Spirit and the seed of 
God within them ; and the nature of the covenant of grace ; 
from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility 
thereof." Chap, xvii, sees. I, 2. 

The doctrine here set out is a necessary outgrowth of 
the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation. 
If God has unchangeably fixed the destiny of every man 
before time began, then it follows that such destiny can 
not be changed by any act of the creature — nay, not even 
by the Creator ; for that which is unchangeable can not 
be changed even by God himself. Therefore none of the 
eternally elect can fall if that doctrine obtains ; and when- 
ever it is clearly shown that a Christian may apostatize, and 
be lost, the whole theory of unconditional election and 
reprobation is exploded. We will therefore be somewhat 
careful to see how this is. And if there was not another 
sentence in the Bible touching the subject, Paul's most 
solemn warning to the Corinthians would be quite suffi- 
cient to settle the question forever. He tells them of the 
falls of the Jews as examples to his brethren, and that 
their deplorable end was recorded as a solemn admonition 
to others, lest they, feeling secure, might fall. What could 
be more conclusive ? In the last verse of the preceding 
chapter, the apostle says, " I keep under my body, and 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 29 

bring it into subjection : lest that by any means, when I 
have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." 
1 Cor. ix : 27. If Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, 
had to keep such constant watch-care over himself, lest, 
after all his labor, he should be lost, is it not possible that 
others may fall ? It is not necessary to show that Paul 
was one of the elect, for this will surely be admitted : yet 
he was in danger of falling ; and had he fallen, would not 
the number of the elect have been diminished thereby, 
and the number of the reprobate correspondingly in- 
creased ? 

Jesus said : " I am the vine, ye are the branches. 'He 
that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth 
much fruit ; for without me ye can do nothing. If a man 
abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is with- 
ered ; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, 
and they are burned." John xv : 5, 6. Why charge them 
to abide in him, if they could not do otherwise than abide 
in him ? and why liken them to withered and dried branches 
which men gather and cast into the fire to be burned, if 
by reason of the immutability of the decree of election 
they could not do otherwise than persevere to the end and 
be eternally saved ? 

Paul tells Timothy of " Hymeneus and Philetus ; who 
concerning the truth have erred, saying that the res- 
urrection is passed already ; and overthrow the faith of 
some." 2 Tim. ii : 18. Here were persons who had faith, 
and that faith was overthrown by false teaching. Surely, 
these persons were of the elect, for the creed tells us that 
" The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to be- 
lieve to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit 
of Christ in their hearts." Chap, xiv, sec. 1. Without 
stopping for the present to inquire how the elect, whose 
souls never could have been lost, can believe to the sav- 



30 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ing of their souls, we remark that faith is the work of 
the Spirit in the heart of the elect, according to the creed ; 
hence Hymeneus and Philetus diminished the number 
of the elect just as many as there were persons whose 
faith they overthrew. 

But we will hear what Paul has to say to the Hebrews, 
chap, vi : verses 4-6 : " For it is impossible for those who 
were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly 
gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have 
tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world 
to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto 
repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of 
God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Here it is 
most clearly taught that even those who had been blessed 
with those extraordinary spiritual manifestations peculiar 
to the age of the apostles, might fall away ; else why the 
language, " if they do fall away," when they could not so 
fall ? But again he says : " If we sin wilfully after that we 
have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth 
no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for 
of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the 
adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without 
mercy under two or three witnesses ; of how much sorer pun- 
ishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath 
trodden under foot the Son of God, and have counted the 
blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an un- 
holy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ?" 
Heb. x: 26-29. Here was a sorer punishment than death 
awaiting, under certain conditions, persons who had been 
sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Surely, these sanc- 
tified persons were of the elect, even according to the creed, 
for it says:" Sanctification is a work of God's grace, where- 
by they, whom God hath, before the foundation of the 
world, chosen to be holy, are, in time, through the powerful 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 3 1 

operation of his Spirit, applying the death and resurrection 
of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the 
image of God." Larger Catechism, answer to Question 75. 
Then Paul intended to teach that God's elect, after sanctifi- 
cation by the blood of the new covenant, might sin wilfully 
and be worthy of sorer punishment than those who died 
without mercy under the law of Moses. But we will hear 
Peter on the same subject. He says : " If after they have 
escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge 
of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again en- 
tangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with 
them than the beginning. For it had been better for them 
not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after 
they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment 
delivered unto them ; but it is happened unto them accord- 
ing to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own 
vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallow- 
ing in the mire." 2 Pet. ii : 20-22. Here we find that 
persons who have escaped the pollutions of the world may 
again be entangled in and overcome by them ; and we are 
clearly told that if they are so overcome, then the latter 
end with them is worse than the beginning. Better for 
them not to have obeyed the gospel at all than to turn 
back into wickedness. As the sow that was washed may 
go back to wallowing in the mire, so may he who was 
cleansed from sin become worse than before. 

Paul testified to such of his Galatian brethren as were 
circumcised, that " Christ is become of no effect unto you, 
whosoever of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen 
from grace." Gal. v : 4. Here, it seems to us, all contro- 
versy on the possibility of " falling from grace" should 
cease. We see no place for further argument on the sub- 
ject ; indeed, we know not how to make an argument on 
a passage like this. We have learned how to reason from 



12 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

premises to conclusions, but here there is no room for 
reason. When Paul most solemnly testifies that such as 
had turned back to the law and been circumcised had 
" fallen from grace," it must simply be accepted as true, 
or the truth of the statement denied. Surely, these were 
once in grace — in favor with God — in Christ — for it would 
be the merest twaddle to talk about persons falling from 
positions which they never occupied. This being true, it 
follows that every person who thus falls diminishes the 
number of the elect and increases the number of the rep- 
robate ; hence the whole theory of unconditional election 
and reprobation is untrue. 

But it is not only true that Christians, God's elect, may 
fall as individuals, but it is also true that congregations 
composing the " church of God" at certain places may fall. 
In proof of this position we would refer the reader to the 
several messages to the Asiatic churches, only a few ex- 
tracts from which we have here room to make. After ap- 
proving many good traits of character in the church at 
Ephesus, God said to them : " Nevertheless I have some- 
what against thee ; because thou hast left thy first love. 
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and re- 
pent, and do the first works ; or else I will come unto thee 
quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, 
except thou repent." Rev. ii : 4, 5. Here was a church 
which had many elegant traits of character, yet it had 
left its first love, so that it had to repent and do its 
first works or have its candlestick quickly removed. 
Certainly, this had reference to the removal of the church 
as a body. 

To the church of the Laodiceans he said : " I know thy 
works, that thou art neither cold nor hot ; I would that 
thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art luke- 
warm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 33 

mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased 
with goods, and have need of nothing ; and knowest not 
that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, 
and naked : I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the 
fire, that thou mayest be rich ; and white raiment, that thou 
mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do 
not appear ; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou 
mayest see." Rev. iii : 15-18. Here was a church which 
God said he would spew out of his mouth, and after many 
epithets of reproach upon it he gives it such coun- 
sel as would enable it to reinstate itself in his 
favor by reformation and obedience. God said, " If the 
wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, 
and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and 
right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his trans- 
gressions that he hath committed, they shall not be men- 
tioned : in his righteousness that he hath done he shall 
live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should 
die ? saith the Lord God : and not that he should return 
from his ways and live ? But when the righteous turneth 
away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and 
doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked 
man doeth, shall he live ? All his righteousness that he 
hath done shall not be mentioned : in his trespass that he 
hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them 
shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. 
Hear now, O house of Israel ; is not my way equal ? are 
not your ways unequal ? When a righteous man turneth 
away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and 
dieth in them ; for his iniquity that he hath done shall 
he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his 
wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which 
is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he 
considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions 



34 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not 
die." Ezek. xviii : 21-28. This general principle character- 
izes all God's dealings with man in every age of the world. 

We come now to consider the doctrine of eternal uncon- 
ditional election and reprobation in its bearing on the sub- 
ject of the atonement. ' If God, before the foundation of 
the world, unconditionally ordained just who and how many 
should be saved, and who and how many lost, then of course 
the atonement made by Christ could not reach those who 
were fore-ordained to dishonor and wrath, and therefore 
they could not have had any interest in his death. Indeed 
it is difficult, according to the theory, to see the benefits 
of Christ's death at all ; for the atonement could not make 
the salvation of the elect any more secure, nor could it 
possibly change the condition or chances of the reprobate. 
Here again the creed is consistent with itself, as far as 
the reprobate are concerned, for it does not assume that 
the benefits of the atonement can in any way reach them ; 
not because of any fault in them, but because Christ did 
not die for them. It says : " Neither are any other re- 
deemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanc- 
tified, and saved, but the elect only." Chap. 3, sec. 6. 
Then, when it is shown that Christ died for all men, the 
doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation will have 
been again exploded. 

Paul says, " We see Jesus, who was made a little lower 
than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with 
glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste 
death for every man." Heb. ii : 9. What can this mean ? 
It can mean nothing less than that Christ died for every 
man. Surely, it would require elastic rules of interpreta- 
tion to supply the word elect here, so as to make it read that 
''Jesus tasted death for every elect ma?t." Before making 
this addition to the word of the Lord, let the reader con- 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 35 

sider well the following quotation : " For I testify unto 
every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this 
book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add 
unto him the plagues that are written in this book." 
Rev. xxii: 18. 

" For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-be- 
gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life ; for God sent not his Son 
into the world to condemn the world ; but that the world 
through him might be saved." John iii : 16,17. Here we 
find that the love of God extended to the world, and the 
object of sending His Son into the world was the salvation 
of the world. But here again we are asked to supply the 
word elect, so as to restrict the love of God to the elect. 
But the same apostle, in another place, supplies a word bet- 
ter calculated to give his use of the word world as con- 
nected with the atonement. He says, " He is the pro- 
pitiation for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for 
the sins of the whole world." 1 John ii : 2. Could lan- 
guage be more ample or comprehensive ? and would any 
one ever have thought of restricting its meaning to the 
whole elect world, had not the salvation of a theory required 
it ? We know that the word world is sometimes used in a 
limited sense — that is, when it is intended to apply to a 
part, and not all of the human race ; but it applies in such 
cases to the wicked, as distinguished from the elect. A 
single example will abundantly show this. Jesus said to 
his disciples : " If the world hate you, ye know that it hated 
me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world 
would love his own ; but because ye are not of the world, 
but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world 
hateth you." John xv: 18,19. In this quotation the word 
world occurs several times in a limited sense, but every 
time it refers to the wicked as distinguished from the elect. 



$6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

But the context itself utterly forbids any such restricted 
use of the term in John iii : 16, 17. Let us examine it a 
little. The passage not only teaches that God loved the 
world, but also that the object of sending His Son into the 
world was that the world might not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life. Then if the love of God, and the world to 
whom He sent His Son, be confined to the elect world, it 
follows that whosoever of this elect world believes on Him 
may not perish ; but others of the elect world may not be- 
lieve on Him, and therefore perish. This view is quite prom- 
inent in the verse immediately following : " He that be- 
lieveth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth 
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on 
the name of the only begotten Son of God." John iii : 18. 
That is, he, of this elect world that God loved, and to whom 
He sent His Son, that believeth not, is condemned already. 
This doctrine the advocates of the theory will not allow. 
And it will do no better to confine the word world to the 
Jews, reading it thus : " God so loved the Jewish world that 
he sent his only begotten Son," etc. : for that would exclude 
all others but Jews from the benefits of the atonement, even 
the makers of the creed themselves. Nor will it do to ap- 
ply the word world here to the Roman Empire, for this 
would exclude the other nations, and thus come in direct 
conflict with the commission sending the apostles to dis- 
ciple all nations, and into all the world to preach to every 
creature. Then it must mean just what it says : " He is the 
propitiation for the sins of the whole world." "Because 
we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 
and that he died for all, that they which live should not 
henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died 
for them, and rose again." 2 Cor. v: 14, 15. Here the 
apostle clearly teaches that Christ died for all affected by 
the sin of Adam ; hence the language : " If one died for all, 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 37 

then were all dead." Then as " death passed upon all men" 
(Rom. v: 12), even so Christ died for all men. "There- 
fore, as by the offense of one,judgment came upon all men- 
to condemnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the 
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." 
Rom. v: 18. Without turning aside to offer an exegesis 
of this verse, it is sufficient for our present purpose to call 
attention to the very obvious fact that, as Adam's sin affects 
all men, even so the benefits of Christ's death are offered to 
all men. To the same effect spake Jesus when He said : 
" I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto 
me. This he said, signifying what death he should die." 
John xii: 32, 33. Surely, He did not expect all men to be 
drawn unto Him by His death unless all were interested in 
His death. What attraction' could His death have for a 
reprobate, when he knew He died not for him, or any but 
the elect ? 

Again : Paul says, " There is one God, and one mediator 
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave 
himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 
1 Tim. ii : 5, 6. Here, as usual, Paul is in contact with 
the theory which says substantially that Christ gave him- 
self a ransom for the elect only. It is evident, from this 
connection, that the ransom was co-extensive with the 
mediatorial office — yea, with the reign of God himself — 
" For there is one God, and one mediator between God and 
men, the man Christ Jesus ; who gave himself a ransom for 
all." Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost 
that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make 
intercession for those he is able to save ; and he is able to 
save to the uttermost ; yet he can save none, only those 
for whom he died ; therefore he died for the uttermost that 
come to God by him. Surely, we can not be mistaken in 
this. 



38 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

When the angel of the Lord announced the birth of 
Christ to the shepherds who watched their flocks in the 
plains of Judea, he said, " Fear not : for, behold, I bring 
you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people." 
Luke ii : 10. It occurs to us that the angel would have 
spoken more like the creed had he said, " Behold, I bring 
you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to the elect? 
Surely, the announcement of a Saviour born could not have 
been glad tidings of great joy to those who were eternally 
reprobate, and therefore could not hope for an interest in 
His mission and death, or the atonement made by Him. 
Nor is it very easy to see how the news of His birth could 
have been glad tidings of great joy even to the elect, for 
He could not make their salvation any more secure than 
it was made by the immutable decree of election. Peter 
did not so understand the subject, for he said, "Where- 
fore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your call- 
ing and election sure." Then it was not already sure. 
But why strive to make it sure ? " For if ye do these 
things, ye shall never fall." 2 Pet. i : 10. Then if they 
did not do these things they would fall, and make void 
their election; at least they would be liable to do so. 
Hence, as the announcement of His birth was glad tidings 
of great joy to all people, it is certain that Christ died for 
all people ; and therefore all people may be saved through 
the atonement made by Him. It is certain that all will 
not be saved ; but it will not be because the provisions of 
the atonement did not embrace them, but because they 
would not accept salvation as offered to them. 

It is conceded by all parties that Christ died for the 
elect or saved ; hence we propose next to show that He 
also died for such as have bee7i or may be lost. Paul says : 
" But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest 
thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 39 

whom Christ died." Rom. xiv : 15. "And through thy 
knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ 
died." 1 Cor. viii: 11. These passages teach as clearly 
as language can teach any thing that there were members 
of the church of God, both at Rome and at Corinth, for 
whom Christ died, who were liable to perish — be destroyed ; 
hence Christ died as well for those who perish — are de- 
stroyed — as for those who are saved. These passages show, 
too, that the disciples at Rome and Corinth were liable to 
fall away — perish — be destroyed ; hence his admonition to 
those in charge of the weaker members to guard against 
such result. How can it be, then, that the destiny of ev- 
ery one was immutably fixed by the decree of election ? 
But we will hear another apostle on the same subject. 
Peter says : " But there were false prophets among the 
people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, 
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even deny- 
ing the Lord that bought them, and bring upon them- 
selves swift destruction." 2 Peter ii : 1. Here were false 
teachers that denied the Lord that bought them, and 
thereby brought upon themselves swift destruction. How 
did the Lord buy them ? Paul admonished certain per- 
sons "to feed the church of God, which he purchased 
with his own blood." Acts xx : 28. Then it was with 
the blood of Christ that He bought or purchased these 
false teachers who denied Him, and destroyed themselves. 
Before leaving this passage, we may note another fact 
which appears in it. These false teachers brought de- 
struction upon themselves ; and this they could not have 
done if they were eternally and unchangeably ordained to 
dishonor and wrath by God's decree. The decree de- 
stroyed them, and no act of theirs — if such decree was 
made concerning them. 

We next propose to show that salvation is attainable 



40 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

by all men, because the gospel of salvation is to be 
preached to all men. Jesus charged the apostles to 
"teach all nations, baptizing them." Matt, xxviii : 19. 
And again : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creatute." Mark xvi : 15. Why preach 
the gospel to every creature when the larger portion were 
not embraced in its provisions ? It occurs to us that some- 
thing like the following would have been more appropriate : 
" Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the 
elect, that they may know the ample provisions made for 
them before the foundation of the world ; but to the rep- 
robate say nothing, for as they can not by any possibility 
avert the awful doom that surely awaits them, 't is better 
to let them remain ignorant of their fate as long as possi- 
ble." If this be true, we can see no use of all the labor 
and expense of printing Bibles, building meeting-houses, 
and preaching the gospel to either saint or sinner. If 
we are of the definite number elected and fore-ordained 
to eternal life, there is no chance for us to be lost ; and 
if not, we can not be saved. We have often heard this 
doctrine preached from the pulpit, when the sermon closed 
with an exhortation to sinners to come to the anxious- 
seat to seek salvation or pray for pardon of sin. What a 
mockery ! Why tell a man that God has unalterably fixed 
his destiny before time began, and then exhort him to 
"flee from the wrath to come" and "lay hold on eternal 
life" — as though he could either change or confirm God's 
eternal and immutable decree ! ! Surely, his efforts could 
do no good, nor could his negligence do any harm, for 
"Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, 
before the foundation of the world was laid, according to 
his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel 
and good pleasure of his will, has chosen in Christ unto 
everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, with- 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 41 

out any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance 
in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as 
conditions or causes moving him thereunto." Conf, chap, 
iii, sec. 5. Thus we see that faith, good works, nor any 
other thing, can avail, for the whole matter was unalter- 
ably fixed before time began. Salvation, upon certain 
conditions, was the great object of preaching the gospel 
to every creature ; and among these conditions faith oc- 
cupies a conspicuous place: "Faith cometh by hearing, 
and hearing by the word of God." Rom. x: 17. Hence 
the necessity of preaching the gospel — teaching the word 
of God to every creature, that he might have the privilege of 
believing and obeying it ; therefore the promise : " He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that be- 
lieve th not shall be damned." ' Mark xvi : 1 6. The fact that 
Jesus required the gospel to be preached among all nations, 
to every creature, promising salvation to those who would 
believe and obey it, is evidence high as heaven that all 
may have salvation who will accept it upon the conditions 
specified. Surely, God would not mock His creatures by 
preaching the gospel, and offering salvation to them on cer- 
tain conditions, when He had eternally and unchangeably 
ordained that they should not be saved, and put it out of 
their power to comply with the terms offered. Nor is this 
all : He follows the promise of conditional salvation with 
the awful threat that "He that believeth not shall be 
damned." We can not see why any one should be required 
to believe and trust in a Saviour who did nothing for them, 
and believe and obey a gospel the provisions of which did 
not embrace them. Men are required to believe upon and 
trust in Jesus, in order to salvation : " Many other signs 
truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are 
not written in this book : but these are written, that ye 
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." 
4 



42 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

And why believe this ? " That believing ye might have 
life through his name." John xx: 30, 31. Jesus said, " He 
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and he that 
believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of 
God abideth on him." John iii : 36. Thus we see that 
man is denied eternal life, and subjected to the abiding 
wrath of God, not because of any eternal decree against 
him personally, but because of his unbelief; hence "He 
that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that be- 
lieveth not is condemned already." And why is he con- 
demned already ? Is it because of God's eternal decree 
against him ? No ; but " because he hath not believed in 
the name of the only begotten Son of God." John iii: 18. 
Thus the justice of God is vindicated in the punishment 
of man. If he is not saved, it will not be because God 
eternally and unchangeably ordained his destruction ; nor 
will it be because God willed not his salvation. Hear Him 
most solemnly deny such an imputation : " If the wicked 
will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and 
keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, 
he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgres- 
sions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned 
unto him. In his righteousness that he hath done he shall 
live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should 
die ? saith the Lord God : and not that he should return 
from his ways and live." Ezek. xviii : 21-23. "For I 
have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the 
Lord God ; wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Ver. 
32. And again : " As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no 
pleasure in the death of the wicked ; but that the wicked 
turn from his way and live." Ezek. xxxiii: 11. This is 
either true or it is untrue. If God, from all eternity, fixed 
the destiny of all men, and ordained a definite number to 
life and a definite number to dishonor and wrath, and that 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 43 

"according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, 
whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleas- 
eth" (Conf., chap, iii, sec. 7), then we see not how God has 
not pleasure in and wills not that which is according to 
the secret counsel and good pleasure of His own will. It 
requires greater skill than we possess to harmonize the 
Bible and the creed here. "The Lord is not slack con- 
cerning his promise, as some men count slackness ; but is 
longsufferhig to us-ward, not willing that any should per- 
ish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Pet. iii : 9. 
How can this be true, if God fixed the destiny of each one 
in accordance with the unsearchable counsel of His will 
before time began ? He who can, may explain. 

Paul says : " I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplica- 
tions, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made 
for all men ; for kings, and for all that are in authority ; 
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness 
and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight 
of God our Saviour ; who will have all men to be saved, and 
to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. ii : 1-4. 
Here we learn that all men are the objects of prayer. And 
why ? Because God wills the salvation of all men. Then 
if all are not saved, it will be because " ye will not come to 
me that ye might have life." John v : 40. Their own ob- 
durate will is the great barrier to the salvation of men. 
When Jesus beheld the wickedness of the people of Jeru- 
salem, and the consequent destruction that awaited them, 
he said : " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the 
prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how 
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a 
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would 
not!" Matt, xxiii : 37. Mark well the reason : " Ye zvould 
not" Yes, the Son of God would gladly have saved them 
from the danger which threatened them, even as He would 



44 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

now save all who would come to God by Him ; yet they 
would not — neither will ye. " The Spirit and the bride say* 
Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let 
him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him 
take the water of life freely." Rev. xxii : 17. Not who- 
soever was elected from all eternity, but whosoever will, 
let him take the water of life freely. Then whosoever 
perishes is lost because he will not partake of that which 
is freely offered to him. His unending wail may be, " God 
is just, though I am lost." 

Jesus said, " The Son of man is come to seek and to 
save that which was lost." Luke xix : 10. Was there 
ever a time when the elect were lost ? If so, when ? The 
creed tells us that they were predestinated unto life before 
the foundation of the world was laid ; hence, if they were 
ever lost, it must have been before that : therefore they 
could not have been the objects of Christ's mission, for 
these were lost when He came. Again He says: "They 
that are whole have no need of the physician, but they 
that are sick : I came not to call the righteous, but sin- 
ners to repentance." Mark ii : 17 ; Luke v : 31, 32. Were 
the eternally elect the sinners which Jesus came to call 
to repentance ? Surely, they were not sick enough to in- 
voke the aid of Jesus, the great Physician, for they were 
eternally and immutably ordained to eternal life ; hence 
they were not sick — at all events they could not have been 
sick unto death. 

The Scriptures abound with testimony showing that 
men are not elect before conversion. A few passages of 
this class are all for which we have room in this work. 
In speaking of himself and his Ephesian brethren, Paul 
tells us that they were " by nature the children of wrath, 
even as others." Eph. ii : 3. If they had been elected to 
salvation before time began, we see not how, at any time, 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 45 

they could have been children of wrath, even as others not 
of the elect. Again : " Ye are not in the flesh, but in the 
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now 
if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." 
Rom. viii: 9. All persons know that, prior to conversion, 
the Spirit of Christ was not in them, and hence, at that time, 
they were none of His ; yet, according to the theory, they 
were always His. "As many as are led by the Spirit of 
God, they are the sons of God." Rom. viii: 14. Then 
of course the converse is true, that as many as are not led 
by the Spirit of God are not the sons of God. All un- 
converted persons are led by the spirit of the wicked one, 
and not by the Spirit of God ; therefore no unconverted 
man is a son of God. It will be conceded that the elect 
are sons of God ; hence when not sons of God, none are elect. 
" Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is 
in you, except ye be reprobates." 2 Cor. xiii : 5. Prior to 
conversion, Christ is in no one. Paul says, " I travail in 
birth again until Christ be formed in you." Gal. iv : 19. 
As Christ has to be formed in men, it follows that He was 
not always in them ; and when He is not in them, they are 
reprobates : therefore none are elect until converted. " If 
any man be in Christ, he is a new creature : old things are 
passed away ; behold, all things are become new." 2 Cor. 
v: 17. If all the elect were in Christ from before the 
foundation of the world, then conversion makes no man 
a new creature in Him ; for if in Him at all, they were 
always in Him. Paul says, " Salute Andronicus. and Junia, 
my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note 
among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." 
Rom. xvi : 7. If Paul and his kinsmen were in Christ from 
before the foundation of the world, then he made a most 
egregious blunder here. When was it, and how is it that 
they were in Christ before him ? Once more : " They that 



46 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and 
lusts." Gal. v: 24. Then those who have not crucified 
the flesh with the affections and lusts are not Christ's. 
There was a time in the history of every man when he had 
not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts, and 
therefore a time when he was not Christ's. All the elect 
are Christ's ; therefore there was a time in the life of every 
man when he was not of the elect : hence none are per- 
sonally and unconditionally elected to eternal life from be- 
fore the foundation of the world. 

Speaking of his brethren in the Lord, Peter said: "Ye 
are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, 
a peculiar people ; that ye should show forth the praises of 
him who hath called you out of darkness into his mar- 
velous light: which in time past were not a people, but 
are now the people of God ; which had not obtained mercy, 
but now have obtained mercy." 1 Pet. ii: 9, 10. Here, 
again, we know not how to make an argument. This pas- 
sage is so manifestly opposed to the whole theory of eter- 
nal and unconditional election and reprobation that there 
is no room to reason about it. These were a chosen gen- 
eration, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ; 
hence they were God's elect beyond controversy : yet in 
time past they were not a people, but then were the people 
of God. Do you say these were Gentiles ? Suppose they 
were: what relief does this bring to the theory? It only 
shows the more clearly that once they were not God's peo- 
ple ; yet when the apostle wrote, they were God's people — 
yes, verily, they were His peculiar people. Were they 
elected in Christ before the foundation of the world ? 
Then we would gladly know what time in the past it was 
at which they were not the people of God. Once they had 
not obtained mercy. When was this ? Elected to eternal 



ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 47 

life before the foundation of the world, out of God's mere 
free grace and love, and yet had not obtained mercy ! ! ! 

But if the doctrine already quoted from the Confession 
is true — that before the foundation of the world was laid, 
according to an immutable and eternal purpose of His own, 
without any foresight of faith, good works, or any thing 
else in man, God unconditionally elected some men and 
angels to eternal life, and at the same time fore-ordained 
the residue to dishonor and eternal wrath — then we know 
not how to avoid the conclusion that He is a respecter of 
persons. Against this imputation upon the character of 
our Heavenly Father, at least two inspired pens have given 
testimony. Paul said, "There is no respect of persons 
with God." Rom ii : n. Again: "He that doeth wrong, 
shall receive for the wrong which he hath done : and there 
is no respect of persons." Col. iii : 25. Once more : 
" And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbear- 
ing threatening : knowing that your Master also is in 
heaven ; neither is there respect of persons with him." 
Eph. vi : 9. It is probable that Peter once had similar 
thoughts upon this subject to those of Calvinists now. 
Certain it is that he thought the privileges and blessings 
of the gospel were confined to the Jews, and it required 
nothing less than a miracle to convince him of his error ; 
but when convinced, he at once replied : "Of a truth I 
perceive that God is no respecter of persons." Acts x : 
34. From that time he gladly taught the gospel to those 
previously regarded unworthy of its privileges. Finally, 
let us examine the subject of a general judgment through 
Calvinistic glasses. 

" The times of this ignorance God winked at ; but now 
commandeth all men every-where to repent : because he 
hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world 



48 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." 
Acts xvii : 30, 31. 

But why appoint a day of judgment in which to judge 
the world, if the numbers of the elect and reprobate were 
made certain and definite beyond increase or diminution 
before time began? Surely, the line of separation was 
drawn deep and wide between them by the immutable de- 
cree which assigned each one his position long in advance 
of his being. But God will judge the world in righteous- 
ness ; therefore His judgment will be in accordance with 
principles of justice: " For we must all appear before the 
judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the 
things done in his body, according to that he hath done, 
whether it be good or bad." 2 Cor. v : 10. John says : 
" And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; 
and the books were opened : and another book was opened, 
which is the book of life : and the dead were judged out of 
those things which were written in the books, according 
to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were 
in it ; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were 
in them : and they were judged every man according to 
their works." Rev. xx : 12, 13. Why judge a man accord- 
ing to his works, when every thing he did was specifically 
ordained and put out of his control before time began? 
Why not judge him, if at all, according to the eternal de- 
cree which immutably fixed his destiny? From such a 
stand-point as Calvinism the whole theory of a future judg- 
ment seems to us a most sublimely ridiculous farce. 

That the decree of election, and not the things done in 
the body, is the rule or law by which Calvinism proposes 
to judge the world, is further shown by the fact that repro- 
bate infants that die in infancy are consigned to eternal mis- 
ery for no other reason than that they were not of the elect. 
On page 64, chap, x, sec. 3, the creed says: " Elect infants 



ELECTION. AND REPROBATION. 49 

dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ 
through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how 
he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are 
incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the 
Word." Yes, elect infants are saved by Christ ; but what 
of the non-elect ? " Others not elected, though they may 
be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some 
common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come 
to Christ, and therefore can not be saved." The words 
" elect infants " clearly imply non-elect infants. Elect 
means to choose. There can be no choice where there is 
but one person or class of persons. The above quotation 
tells us that elect infants dying in infancy are saved ; and 
of course the non-elect infants dying in infancy, or in 
living to adult age, can not be saved, as Christ never died 
for them, or any but the elect. Though you may consign 
your infant to the tomb while so young that it never could 
have had a wicked thought or done a wicked act, yet you 
have no assurance of its ever being raised in the image of 
Christ, for the reason that you can not tell whether it is 
or is not one of the elect. No, you can not tell whether 
its little tongue will be employed in praising God, or in 
fruitless cries and bitter wailings in the eternal pit of de- 
spair, for no fault of its own, or any one else, but simply 
because God unchangeably decreed it that horrible fate. 
Calvinism has no escape from this difficulty. The num- 
bers of the elect and reprobate having been made certain 
and definite before time began, it follows that he who is 
reprobate — at all, was so at birth ; hence those who die in 
that condition are hopelessly lost. There is no remedy 
that can reach such cases. Therefore, Calvinists who are 
not prepared for such results should abandon a theory 
which necessarily produces them. 
5 



CHAPTER III. 

CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 

AS the Bereans " were more noble than those in Thes- 
salonica, in that they received the word with all 
readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, 
whether those things were so " (Acts xvii : 1 1), even so we 
should search the Scriptures and receive the truth revealed 
in God's word with that readiness of mind that has ever 
characterized His true and devoted followers. Let us, there- 
fore, very carefully consider the Scriptures relied on to 
prove the doctrine in question. 

Ananias said to Saul, "The God of our fathers hath 
chosen thee." Acts xxii: 14. This shows that Paul was 
elected or chosen ; but for what was he chosen ? Perhaps 
we may learn what Ananias meant here by reference to 
what the Lord said to him when He sent him to Paul : 
" The Lord said unto him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen 
vessel unto me." Chosen for what ? " To bear my name 
before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." 
Acts ix: 15. Before giving this instruction to Ananias, 
the Lord said to Paul : " I have appeared unto thee for this 
purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of 
these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in 
the which -I will appear unto thee ; delivering thee from 
the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send 
thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness 
to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
(50) 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 5 I 

may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among 
them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Acts 
xxvi: 16-18. Taking these Scriptures together, we see 
very clearly what the object of Paul's election was ; and 
his own salvation is not even mentioned in any one of 
the explanations given. He was elected to be a minister,, 
and a witness for Jesus, and to bear the gospel to the 
Gentiles ; hence says he, " I speak to you Gentiles, inas- 
much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine 
office." Rom. xi : 13. Here, then, was the office to which 
he was elected ; but even his election to the apostleship 
did not secure his final salvation, for he says, "I keep 
under my body, and bring it into subjection : lest that by 
any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should 
be a castaway." 1 Cor. ix : 27. That Paul was not elected 
in Christ to salvation before the foundation of the world, is 
clearly shown by the fact that Andronicus and Junia were 
in Christ before him. Rom. xvi : 7. 

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and 
glorified the word of the Lord : and as many as were or- 
dained to eternal life believed." Acts xiii : 48. This is 
relied on to show that men are ordained to eternal life from 
before the foundation of the world, and that this ordination 
is an indispensable antecedent to faith. First we beg 
permission to suggest that the translation of this verse, in 
the common version, is manifestly defective ; but even in it 
there is not a word said about how long they were ordained 
to eternal life before they believed. That the ordination 
was from before the foundation of the world is assumption ; 
nothing more. If men are ordained to eternal life before 
they believe, then they are in a state of condemnation, 
their ordination to the contrary notwithstanding; for the 
Lord said : " He that believeth not is condemned already, 
because he hath not believed in the name of the only be- 



52 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION, 

gotten Son of God." John iii : 18. It is difficult to see 
how a man who is ordained to eternal life can, at the same 
time, be a condemned unbeliever. Not only are they in a 
state of condemnation, but this theory teaches that they 
do not believe, in order to their justification ; for they were 
ordained to eternal life before they believed in the eternal 
life to which they were ordained. This is not only sus- 
tained by the common rendering of this verse, but it is 
made doubly obvious by the fact that the theory places the 
ordination before the beginning of time. On the contrary, 
there is not a truth in the Bible better established than 
that men are required to believe, that they may have eternal 
life: " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 
perish, but have everlasting life," John iii: 16. When 
Jesus said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved " (Mark xvi : 16), did He intend to teach that he that 
would believe and be baptized had always been saved ? or 
when Paul said to the jailer, " Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and thou shalt be saved " (Acts xvi 131), did he mean 
to teach that he had always been saved, having been or- 
dained to eternal life from before the foundation of the 
world ? Absurd as this may appear, it must be true, or 
Calvinism must be false. 

But there are other difficulties hanging about the com- 
mon rendering of this verse. McGarvey, in his Commen- 
tary, has the following very pertinent remarks : 

" If it be true that 'as many as were fore-ordained to eter- 
nal life believed,' then there were none of the fore-ordained 
left in that community who did not believe. Hence all 
those who did not then believe, whether adults or infants, 
were among the reprobate, who were predestinated to ever- 
lasting punishment. Now, it is certainly most singular 
that so complete a separation of the two parties should 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 53 

take place throughout a whole community at one time." 
Truly, this would have been a most singular circumstance — ■ 
such a one, indeed, as no sane man can believe ever oc- 
curred ; hence that the translation is defective is obvious, 
even to those who know nothing of the original ; for a 
faithful translation of God's word is always not only true, 
but perfectly consistent with itself. We have several trans- 
lations of this verse, most of which substantially agree 
with the following version : "And the Gentiles hearing 
this rejoiced, and glorified the word of the Lord ; and as 
many as were disposed for eternal life believed." (Com- 
pilation from George Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, 
by A. Campbell.) This rendering is perfectly consistent 
with the facts and the general teaching of the Scriptures ; 
and, better still, is faithful to the original, and at once re- 
moves all ambiguity from the passage. 

" For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to 
be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be 
the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he 
did predestinate, them he also called : and whom he called, 
them he also justified : and whom he justified, them he 
also glorified." Rom. viii : 29, 30. First it will be ob- 
served that all these verbs are in the past tense, and ex- 
press actions perfected at the time the apostle wrote. Per- 
sons seem to understand the passage to mean that God 
foreknew and predestinated the elect before time began, 
perhaps from eternity, and calls and justifies them now in 
his good time, and will glorify them in heaven finally. 
This can not be, for those of whom the apostle spake 
were glorified at the time he wrote, and for the same 
reason it can not apply to any who have lived since that 
time. The creed says : " God did, from all eternity, decree 
to justify all the elect ; and Christ did, in the fullness of 
time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification ; 



54 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit 
doth in due time actually apply Christ unto them." 
Conf., chap. 1 1, sec. 4. Thus we see that Calvinists 
themselves have justification to take place in the life-time 
of the party justified. Hence, as those of whom Paul 
wrote were justified before that time, it can not apply to 
any who have lived since, even according to the creed, but 
must apply to persons who had lived before the time he 
wrote. Hence the passage can not come to the support 
of Calvinism at all. Here we could well afford to rest our 
examination of the passage, seeing it proves not the doc- 
trine in question ; but we will endeavor to find persons to 
whom the language of the apostle will correctly apply. It 
is not important to inquire when God knew the persons 
here mentioned — we grant that He knew them when He 
predestinated them to be conformed to the image of His 
Son ; and this was done before they were called and justi- 
fied : this is all that can be claimed — the question which 
concerns us more directly is, Who were these of whom 
Paul spake as having been foreknown, predestinated, 
called, justified, and glorified prior to the time he wrote ? 
While we look for an answer to this question, it may be 
well for us to bear in mind that God predestinated them 
to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might 
be the first-born among many brethren. The word con- 
form means " to shape in accordance with ; to make like ; 
to reduce to a likeness or correspondence in character, 
form, manners, etc." (Webster). Then, to be conformed 
to the image of His Son is to be made like Christ, or in 
His image or likeness. Thus far all is plain. Let us try 
again. Paul says : " The first man is of the earth, earthy ; 
the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the 
earthy, such are they also that are earthy : and as is the 
heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 55 

we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear 
the image of the heavenly." i Cor. xv : 47-49. Paul is 
here speaking of the resurrection of the body, and after 
directing the mind to the time of that event, he says : "As 
we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear 
the image of the heavenly" — thus teaching clearly that the 
children of our heavenly Father wear the image of Adam 
through life, but will wear the image of Christ when raised 
from the dead and furnished with immortal bodies like His : 
"And it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we 
know that when he shall appear we shall be like him ; for 
we shall see him as he is." 1 John iii : 2. Though the 
image of Christ, in a certain sense, may have been begun 
in us when we put Him on by a birth of water and Spirit, 
yet it will never be complete until we are glorified with 
Him ; and He was not glorified until after His death, resur- 
rection, and ascension. John says, " The Holy Ghost was 
not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." John 
vii : 29. This clearly implies that the Holy Ghost was 
given as soon as Jesus was glorified ; and as the Holy 
Spirit was not given until the day of Pentecost, it follows 
that his glorification did not long precede that event. 
Therefore, those of whom Paul spake were not only pre- 
destinated, called, and justified, but had also been raised 
from the dead, conformed to the image of Christ, and 
glorified prior to the time he wrote. This not only shows 
that the passage does not embrace all the elect, but it also 
shows that it did not refer to the apostles, as some suppose, 
for they were not all dead at that time, and hence could 
not have been then glorified. Then, when and where had 
any persons been raised from the dead to die no more prior 
to this writing by Paul ? It could not have referred to 
Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, and the widow's son which were 
raised by Christ, for he was not the first-born among them ; 



56 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

nor were they raised to glorification, but simply restored to 
life to live and die again. Let us look further, then, for 
we have not yet found persons to whom the passage can 
apply. " And the graves were opened ; and many bodies 
of the saints which slept arose and came out of the 
graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, 
and appeared unto many." Matt, xxvii : 52, 53. These 
persons were raised from the dead to die no more, but to 
be glorified with their risen Lord. We have seen that 
those of whom Paul wrote were predestinated to be con- 
formed to the image of His Son, which image, if we are 
correct, was perfected when they were glorified. Then, 
for what were they thus to be conformed to the image of 
His Son? "That he might be the firstborn among many 
brethren." When was He the first-born among many 
brethren ? Certainly, it was not when He was born in the 
flesh, for many were thus born before Him ; nor was He the 
first-born of water, for many were baptized by John before 
Him. Paul says He is " the firstborn from the dead." Col. 
i : 1 8. Then He was the first-born from the dead of the many 
brethren who came from their graves after His resurrec- 
tion ; and hence these were they who were predestinated 
to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might 
be the first-born from the dead among them. Of these it 
may be correctly said that they had been foreknown, pre- 
destinated, called, justified, and glorified, at the time Paul 
wrote ; but we know of no others of whom this may be 
truly said. Are we asked who these were ? we answer 
that, as no inspired writer has given their names in this con- 
nection, of course we do not know their names ; but we do 
know that He was the first-born from the dead among those 
who came from their graves after His resurrection : hence 
our argument is complete with or without their names. 
We think it likely, however, that they were Abraham, 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 57 

Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs and prophets of former 
times. That these were foreknown, called, and predestinated 
to the work assigned them, may be seen in the language 
of God to one of them. Jeremiah said: "The word of 
the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee 
in the belly I knew thee ; and before thou earnest forth 
out of the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a 
prophet unto the nations." Jer. i : 4, 5. Those of whom 
Paul spake were foreknown — Jeremiah was foreknown ; 
those were predestinated — Jeremiah was ordained ; those 
were called — Jeremiah was called. "The Lord said unto 
me, Say not, I am a child : for thou shalt go to all that I 
shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou 
shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces : for I am with 
thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put 
forth his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord 
said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. 
See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over 
the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, 
and to throw down, to build and to plant." Ver. 7-10. 
Then he was not only foreknown, predestinated, and 
called, but sanctified, too, and qualified for the work as- 
signed him ; hence he needed only to be justified in his 
obedience (which doubtless he was), raised from the dead, 
and glorified with Christ, to fill to repletion the character 
of those of whom Paul spake. Does any one doubt that 
he was one of them ? then let him show to whom the 
language in question will more fitly apply, and we will 
acknowledge the favor. 

We come next to examine the ninth chapter of Paul's 
letter to the church at Rome, in which he discusses the 
abrogation of the Jewish polity, and the election of a new 
people upon the principle of faith in Christ and obedience 
to His laws. The Jews, as we have seen, had been the 



58 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

only acknowledged family or people of God for many ages 
past ; but in the fullness of time God broke down the middle 
wall of partition betweeu Jew and Gentile and offered salva- 
tion to every creature, among all nations, who would accept 
it on the terms proposed ; hence when the parents of 
Jesus brought Him into the temple, good old Simeon took 
him up in his arms and said, " A light to lighten the 
Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Luke ii : 
32. Paul says this : "In other ages was not made known 
unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy 
apostles and prophets by the Spirit : that the Gentiles 
should be fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers 
of his promise in Christ by the gospel/' Eph. iii: 5, 6. 
This extension of gospel privileges to persons so long 
regarded unworthy, very naturally excited the pride and 
envy of those accustomed to the exclusive enjoyment of 
such distinguished honors and privileges ; hence they de- 
clined to enjoy salvation for no other reason than that the 
Gentiles were made fellow-heirs with them. They refused 
to recognize the fact that " there is no difference between 
the Jew and the Greek : for the same Lord over all is 
rich unto all that call upon him." Rom. x: 12. . 

They failed to see that the salvation of the Gentiles 
did not lessen the chances of the Jews ; hence Paul quotes 
the language of Moses as applicable to them : " I will 
provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and 
by a foolish nation I will anger you." Rom. x: 19. The 
election contemplated in the gospel was offered to the 
Jews first, and some embraced it and were content to 
become the elect of God ; not as Jews by natural birth, 
but as Christians by a birth of water and Spirit. These 
Paul calls " The election," in opposition to those who 
made themselves reprobate by refusing the "election of 
grace," and adhering to their former election as the de- 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 59 

scendants of Abraham ; hence "the election hath obtained 
it, and the rest were blinded." Rom. xi: 7. "Not as 
though the word of God had taken none effect. For they 
are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Rom. ix: 6. 
The election of a new church composed of Jews and 
Gentiles was not contrary to the promises of God to 
Abraham, saying, " I will establish my covenant between 
me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, 
for an everlasting covenant ; to be a God unto thee, and 
thy seed after thee." Gen. xvii : 7. God gave them very 
clearly to understand that the perpetuity of their covenant 
relation to Him depended on their obedience ; hence 
said He, "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my 
covenant, then ye shall be. a peculiar treasure unto me 
above all people." Ex. xix : 5. Hence when they ceased 
to obey Him, His promises to them were at an end ; hence 
Paul asks, " Hath God cast away his people ? God for- 
bid." Rom., xi : 1. If they were lost at all, it was their 
own fault. But even so, "For they are not all Israel, 
which are of Israel." Many of the descendants of Jacob 
had already fallen. The greater part of the ten tribes 
that were carried into captivity never returned to be again 
united to the Israel of God. 

Hence this passage not only shows the rejection of the 
unbelieving Jews to be no infraction of God's promises 
to Abraham, but it shows the doctrine of eternal uncon- 
ditional election to be false, for we have seen that all the 
children of Israel were once the elect of God ; but when 
Paul wrote, many who were of Israel were not Israel, be- 
cause they had fallen on account of their own wickedness. 

But the apostle vindicates the justice of God in rejecting 
the unbelieving Jews by showing that many of the children 
of Abraham were not embraced in the promise of God to 
him at first. Said he : " Neither, because they are the 



60 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

seed of Abraham, are they all children" — for then the de- 
scendants of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah would have 
been included — " but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That 
is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not 
the children of God : but the children of the promise are 
counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At 
this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son." Rom. 
ix: 7-9. The children of Abraham by Hagar and 
Keturah were children of the flesh, but God saw fit to 
promise him a son by his wife Sarah, when she was past 
age, through whom all the families of the earth were to 
be blessed in Jesus Christ ; hence, in due time, Isaac, the 
child of promise, was born, in whom Jesus, the promised 
seed of Abraham, was called. But the calling of Jesus 
through the line of Isaac did not consign the descendants 
of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah to endless punishment ; 
nor were their chances for heaven diminished by this elec- 
tion of Isaac. Jacob had twelve sons, which became the 
heads of twelve tribes ; but God saw fit to call Jesus the 
promised seed of Abraham, through the tribe of Judah, 
Jacob's fourth son by Leah. Now, will any one assume 
that calling the Messiah through the line of Judah con- 
signed all the others to endless punishment ? If not, 
why should the descendants of Abraham be regarded as 
eternally lost because they did not come through the fam- 
ily of Isaac ? God never promised Abraham that He would 
unconditionally save or damn any one. He promised him 
a son by Sarah, and He gave him Isaac. He promised to 
multiply his seed until they should become numerous as 
the stars of heaven or the sand upon the sea-shore, and 
He did it. He promised to give his seed the land of Ca- 
naan for a possession, and He did this also ; but they for- 
feited it by their rebellion against Him. He promised that 
through his seed all the families of the earth should be 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 6l 

blessed in Jesus Christ; but when Jesus came, according 
to the promise, they wanted to appropriate the blessing 
to themselves, to the exclusion of the Gentiles : hence they 
were seeking to thwart the very promise of God to Abra- 
ham which they thought was made void by carrying it 
into effect. 

"And not only this ; but when Rebecca also had con- 
ceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the children 
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, 
that the purpose of God according to election might stand, 
not of works, but of him that calleth ;) it was said unto 
her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, 
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. ix : 
10-13. 

That we may understand this passage, it may be well to 
call the reader's attention to the fact that there are two 
quotations in it which should not be blended. One quo- 
tation is from Genesis, and was spoken before Jacob and 
Esau were born ; the other is from Malachi, and was 
spoken long after they were both dead. Before the chil- 
dren were born, it was said to their mother " the elder shall 
serve the younger ;" but in the next verse is a quotation 
from Malachi, where it is written, "Jacob have I loved, 
but Esau have I hated." By blending these quotations, 
God is made to say that He loved Jacob and hated Esau 
before they were born ; or had, either of them, done good 
or evil. This is doing great injustice to the record. Let 
us see what was said of them before they were born : "And 
Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was bar- 
ren : and the Lord was entreated of him, and Rebekah his 
wife conceived ; and the children struggled together within 
her, and she said, If it be so, why am I thus ? And she 
went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, 
Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people 



62 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

shall be separated from thy bowels ; and the one people 
shall be stronger than the other people ; and the elder 
shall serve the younger." Gen. xxv : 21-23. Here is what 
was said before Jacob and Esau were born, and we find 
not a word about hating Esau and loving Jacob in the 
whole narrative. But as Paul said it was so written, we 
may expect to find it somewhere ; hence let us try again : 
"The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Mal- 
achi : I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, 
Wherein hast thou loved us ? Was not Esau Jacob's 
brother ? saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob, and I hated 
Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for 
the dragons of the wilderness." Mai. i : 1-3. This was 
said about fourteen hundred years after Jacob and Esau 
were both dead ; hence it can not prove that God loved or 
hated either of them before they were born. But both 
passages refer to Jacob and Esau as the representatives of 
the two nations which descended from them ; hence the 
language of God to Rebekah : " Two nations are in thy 
womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from 
thy bowels ; and the one people shall be stronger than the 
other people ; and the elder shall serve the younger." 
Please note the fact that it is not said " the one man shall 
be stronger than the other ma?t" but " one people shall be 
stronger than the other people? Nor was it said the elder 
man shall serve the younger man ; on the contrary, the in- 
ference is clear that the people who should descend from 
the elder were to be subject to the descendants of the 
younger. This passage was never fulfilled in the person 
of these two brothers. Esau never did, as an individual, 
serve Jacob ; on the contrary, Jacob feared Esau, and came 
much nearer serving him. When Jacob, at the suggestion 
of his mother, fraudulently obtained his father's blessing, 
which was intended for Esau, the anger of the latter was 



CALVIN 1STIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 63 

kindled against his brother : " And Esau hated Jacob be- 
cause of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him : 
and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my 
father are at hand ; then will I slay my brother Jacob. And 
these words of Esau, her elder son, were told to Rebekah : 
and she sent and called Jacob, her younger son, and said 
unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth 
comfort himself, purposing to kill thee. Now therefore, 
my son, obey my voice ; and arise, flee thou to Laban my 
brother to Haran ; and tarry with him a few days, until thy 
brother's fury turn away ; until thy brother's anger turn 
away from thee, and he forget that which thou hast done 
to him." Gen. xxvii : 41-45. Jacob fled to Padan-aram, 
and there remained twenty years in the service of Laban, 
at the end of which he returned with two wives, two con- 
cubines, eleven sons, and great wealth. " And Jacob sent 
messengers before him to Esau his brother, unto the land of 
Seir, the country of Edom. And he commanded them, say- 
ing, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau ; Thy servant 
Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed 
there until now ; and I have oxen, and asses, and flocks, and 
menservants and womenservants, and I have sent to tell my 
lord, that I may find grace in thy sight. And the messen- 
gers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, 
and also he cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men 
with him. Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed : 
and he divided the people that was with him, and the 
flocks, and herds, and the camels into two bands ; and said, 
If Esau come to the one company, and smite it, then the 
other company which is left shall escape." Gen. xxxii : 3-8. 
Here we find that, in place of Esau serving Jacob person- 
ally, Jacob feared Esau greatly — called him his lord, and 
himself the servant. In his distress, he prayed God thus : 
" Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my brother, 



64 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

from the hand of Esau : for I fear him lest he come and 
smite me, and the mother with the children." Ver. n. 
He also sent messengers with presents to give Esau, that 
he might buy his favor if possible. 

Then it is evident that neither Jacob nor Esau was 
mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as 
the representatives of the nations which should descend 
from them respectively ; nor was there any thing in the 
love of God for one, or in His hatred of the other, which 
could affect the eternal destiny of either. It is quite 
certain that all of Jacob's posterity were not saved, and it 
is equally certain that all of Esau's posterity were not lost. 
Indeed, it can not be shown that even Esau himself was 
eternally lost. He was wicked when he sold his birth- 
right, and is called a "profane person" for so doing. It 
is also certain, that he was wicked about the time of his 
father's death, for we have seen that he would have killed 
Jacob had he not fled to the land of Padan-aram ; but that 
he remained wicked as long as he lived is by no means 
certain. True, Paul says that, " When he would have in- 
herited the blessing, he was rejected : for he found no place 
of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." 
Heb. xii : 17. It was in his father that he found no place 
of repentance, and not in himself. He could not induce 
his father to revoke the blessing conferred upon Jacob, 
although fraudulently obtained. When Esau met Jacob 
returning from Padan-aram, " Esau ran to meet him, and 
embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him : and 
they wept." Gen. xxxiii : 4. Here we find that all his 
anger toward his brother had disappeared ; and they lived 
in friendship ever afterward, as far as we know. " By faith 
Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come." 
Heb. xi : 20. If the reader will examine these blessings, 
he will find that there was not a word about eternal life 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 65 

or eternal death in either of them. They pertained to 
national and temporal affairs entirely. To Jacob, Isaac 
said, " See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field 
which the Lord hath blessed : therefore God give thee of 
the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty 
of corn and wine : let people serve thee, and nations bow 
down to thee : be lord over thy brethren, and let thy 
mother's sons bow down to thee : cursed be every one that 
curseth thee, and blessed be every one that blesseth thee." 
Gen. xxvii: 27-29. To Esau, Isaac said: "Behold, thy 
dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the 
dew of heaven from above ; and by thy sword shalt thou 
live, and shalt serve thy brother : and it shall come to pass 
when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break 
his yoke from off thy neck." Gen. xxvii : 39, 40. Now 
we find no allusion to the final salvation or condemnation 
of either, in these blessings ; but it is easy to see that they 
are connected with the purpose of God as expressed to 
their mother: "The one people shall be stronger than the 
other people ; and the elder shall serve the younger." See 
the same thought in Jacob's blessing. "Let people serve 
thee, and nations bow down to thee : be lord over thy 
brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow down to thee." 
In Esau's blessing we have still the same : " By thy sword 
shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother." Thus we 
see, in these blessings, the servitude spoken of before the 
birth of the children, which was never fulfilled in them, 
but was fulfilled in their posterity. 

That the language, " Jacob have I loved, but Esau have 
I hated," was intended to apply to the two nations, Israel 
and Edom, represented by Jacob and Esau, is evident 
from the language of the context from which Paul made 
the quotation : " Was not Esau Jacob's brother ? yet I 
loved Jacob, and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and 
6 



66 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 
Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will 
return and build the desolate places." Mai. i : 2-4. 
Here the prophet uses the term Edom, the name of the 
nation which descended from Esau, and the plural pronoun 
we, agreeing with it, to designate the same people hated 
and punished by the Lord. Hence when the Lord, by his 
prophet, said, long after both men were dead, "Jacob have 
I loved, but Esau have I hated," He was speaking of Israel 
and Edom as nations, but not of Jacob and Esau as indi- 
viduals. 

It may not be out of place here to remark that the term 
hate, is sometimes used in the sense of loved less — to regard 
with less favor ; e. g: "And when the Lord saw that Leah 
was hated, he opened her womb : but Rachel was barren. 
And Leah conceived, and bore a son ; and she called his 
name Reuben : for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked 
upon my affliction ; now therefore my husband will love 
me. And she conceived again, and bore a son ; and said, 
Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, He hath 
therefore given me this son also : and she called his name 
Simeon." Gen. xxix : 31-33. Here it is said that 
Jacob hated Leah ; but by an examination of the preced- 
ing verse, it will be seen that nothing more is meant by 
it than that she was loved less than Rachel. "He loved 
also Rachel more thah Leah, and served with him yet 
seven other years." Ver. 30. 

Another example may be found in the language of the 
Saviour : " If any man come to me, and hate not his father, 
and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sis- 
ters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." 
Luke xiv : 26. This is a pretty hard sentence — that, to be 
a disciple of the Lord, a man must not only hate all his 
kindred, but he must also hate his own life ; but when we 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 6j 

have the same thought in different language, it is quite 
plain : " He that loveth father or mother more than me is 
not worthy of me : and he that loveth son or daughter more 
than me is not worthy of me." Matt, x : 37. Then, when 
God said, " I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau," if we interpret 
the passage in the light of this definition, the thought is, 
that He loved the children of Israel more than Edom, the 
descendants of Esau. " What shall we say then ? Is there 
unrighteousness with God" in rejecting the unbelieving 
Jews ? " God forbid ; for he saith to Moses, I will have 
mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have com- 
passion on whom I will have compassion." Vers. 14, 15. 
There was no injustice on the part of God in rejecting 
the unbelieving and rebellious Jews. As a Sovereign, He 
had a right to dictate terms' of mercy to those who would 
become subjects of His kingdom. These terms were first 
offered to and rejected by the Jews ; hence the apostle ap- 
pealed to the declarations ot God to Moses, their own law- 
giver, to show them that God had always shown mercy to 
whom He would, and upon just such terms as pleased 
Him. At a very early period in Jewish history God gave 
them to know the terms upon which they might remain 
the recipients of His mercy. Said He : " I the Lord thy 
God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the father 
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of 
them that hate me ; and showing mercy unto thousands 
of them that love me and keep my commandments." Ex. 
xx : 5, 6. Then God will visit iniquity upon those who 
hate Him, because they hate Him; and He will show 
mercy to those who love Him, because they love Him. " He 
that covereth his sins shall not prosper : but whoso con- 
fesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." Prov. 
xxviii : 13. Hence we find that God's mercy is not dis- 
pensed according to eternal and immutable decrees, but he 



68 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

that will con/ess and forsake his sins shall have mercy. 
Peter tells us of a people " which had not obtained mercy, 
but now have obtained mercy." I Pet. ii : 10. Then they 
did not obtain mercy in a decree made before time began. 
Jesus said, " Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain 
mercy." Matt, v : 7. And James says, " He shall have 
judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy." 
Jas. ii : 13. Hence the Calvinist, who imagines himself 
one of the chosen few to whom God hath shown mercy 
from before the foundation of the world, and is unwilling 
that the mercies of God extend to all men, may thus bring 
upon himself judgment without mercy. 

" So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that 
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." Rom. ix : 16. 
It is possible that this verse alludes to the blessing con- 
ferred by Isaac upon Jacob. Isaac willed that Esau, the 
first-born, should have the blessing ; Esau ran for the ven- 
ison with which to secure it ; nevertheless Jacob obtained 
it. The blessing, as we have seen, was not a personal one, 
but pertained to Jacob's descendants, and had no reference 
to eternal salvation, but conferred temporal blessings only. 
Hence it can yield no support to the theory in question. 
It is true, as shown in another part of the argument, that 
Jacob was elected to be the seed of Isaac, through whom 
Christ should come — but this was before yacob and Esau 
were bom — that the purpose of God according to election 
might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth. Neither 
the purchase of his brother's birthright, nor the blessing 
conferred by his father, had any thing to do with this 
election. 

" For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this 
same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew 
my power in thee, and that my name might be declared 
throughout all the earth." Rom. ix : 17. Now, are we to 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 69 

understand by this that Pharaoh was one of the eternally 
reprobate, and that God fore-ordained the wickedness of 
his nature and the hardness of his heart ? Is this the 
thought ? Let us go back to the Scriptures from which 
Paul quoted, and see how this is : " For this cause have I 
raised thee up, for to show in thee my power, and that my 
name may be declared throughout all the earth." Ex. ix : 
16. Now, is there one word in the context about eternal 
unconditional election and reprobation ? or is there any 
thing about election at all ?. It is said that God raised up 
Pharaoh that He might show His power in him ; but who 
did He not raise up for this purpose ? The same might 
have been truly said of Moses, in whom His mighty power 
was exhibited in the destruction of the Egyptians and the 
salvation of the children of Israel, yet I suppose no one 
will insist that he was raised up eternally reprobate. God 
commanded Pharaoh to let his people go, but he persist- 
ently refused to obey God ; hence God overruled his rebell- 
ion to His own glory. Even so God offered salvation to the 
Jews, upon condition that they would believe and obey the 
gospel. Like Pharaoh, they rebelled against Him ; hence 
He exhibited his power in their destruction as a nation, 
that his name might be glorified in all the earth. But 
surely this can not prove that they were eternally repro- 
bate, for they had been God's elect or chosen people up 
to that time. Not only so, but salvation upon the terms 
of the gospel was first offered to them ; and surely God did 
not offer them a salvation which was never intended for 
them, and which He had unchangeably ordained that they 
should reject. 

But we are told that God hardened Pharaoh's heart : 
" Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, 
and whom he will he hardeneth." Rom. ix : 18. Are we 
to understand by this that God created Pharaoh with a 



yO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

stubborn and rebellious heart, and promoted a spirit of 
wickedness in him by the plagues inflicted upon him ? If 
so, all the threatenings of God were but temptation to evil ; 
yet James says, " Let no man say when he is tempted, I 
am tempted of God, for God can not be tempted with evil, 
neither tempteth he any man ; but every man is tempted 
when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Jas. i : 
13, 14. The mercies and blessings of God tend always to 
harden or soften the hearts of those who receive them. If 
rightly appreciated, they tend to awaken a sense of grati- 
tude in the heart ; but if abused, they tend to harden the 
heart. When the hand of affliction falls heavily upon us, 
we are either wilted into submission to God's will, or, as in 
time of war, we become hardened until some care no more 
for the life of a man than for the life of a beast. Thus it 
was with Pharaoh : when the hand of affliction was upon 
him, he would promise to let the people go ; but as soon as 
the affliction was withdrawn, the spirit of rebellion revived : 
"When Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened 
his heart and hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had 
said." Ex. viii : 15. "And Pharaoh hardened his heart at 
this time also, neither would he let the people go." Ver. 32. 
" And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the 
thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened 
his heart, he and his servants." Ex. ix : 34, Then it can 
only be said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart because He 
sent afflictions upon him which he abused to the hardening 
of his own heart. In the same way it may be said that the 
gospel hardens men now. It is preached to them as the 
power of God to salvation, if they will accept it ; but, reject- 
ing it, they become hardened, until they can resist the most 
stirring appeals to which mortals can be subjected in this 
life. Hence said the apostle : " To the one we are the savor 
of death unto death ; and to the other the savor of life unto 



• CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. *]\ 

life. And who is sufficient for these things?" 2 Cor. ii: 
16. We think it possible for men to continue in rebellion 
against God until they pass entirely beyond the reach of 
all the agencies of the gospel by which God proposes to 
save them. Such were some of the Jews in Paul's day: 
" Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not 
as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their 
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Pro- 
fessing themselves to be wise, they became fools ; and 
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image 
made like to corruptible man, and to birds and to four- 
footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also 
gave them up to uncleanness, through the lust of their own 
hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves ; 
who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped 
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is 
blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them 
up unto vile affections." Rom. i: 21-26. 

Thus we see that God gave them up to uncleanness and 
vile affections, not because they were eternally reprobate, 
and He had predestinated them to be wicked, and created 
vile affections within them, but because of their own 
willful and persistent rebellion against Him. Paul speaks 
of him whose " coming is after the working of Satan, with 
all power and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceiv- 
ableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because 
they received not the love of the truth, that they might be 
saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong de- 
lusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might 
be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure 
in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. ii: 9-12. God sends men 
strong delusions, not because they were eternally reprobate, 
and predestinated to wickedness and destruction, but be- 
cause they receive not the love of the truth, that they 



72 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

might be saved. And though many are thus deluded and 
hardened in falsehood, infidelity, and crime, it is the result 
of their own wickedness, and not because of any eternal and 
immutable decree against them. They " walk in the vanity 
of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being 
alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is 
in them, because of the blindness of their heart : who, being 
past feeling, have given themselves over to lasciviousness, 
to work all uncleanness with greediness." Eph. iv : 17-19. 
Here were persons whose hearts were harder than that of 
Pharaoh, for he could feel even to the last chastisement 
laid upon him ; but these were past feeling, and completely 
given over — not by any eternal decree, but they had given 
themselves over to the service of Satan. 

" Nay but, O man, who' art thou that repliest against 
God ? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, 
Why hast thou made me thus ? hath not the potter power 
over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto 
honor, and another unto dishonor ? What if God, willing 
to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured 
with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to de- 
struction : and that he might make known the riches of his 
glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared 
unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews 
only, but also of the Gentiles." Rom. ix: 20-23. Here 
the apostle has reference to the language of God to the 
prophet concerning the potter, and the clay that was marred 
in his hand while attempting to make a vessel of it. Let 
us go back and see what was originally taught by it, and 
then we may be better prepared to understand Paul's use 
of it : " The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, 
saying, Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there 
I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to 
the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 73 

wheels ; and the vessel that he made of clay was marred in 
the hand of the potter ; so he made it again another vessel, 
as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word 
of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, can not 
I do with you as this potter ? saith the Lord. Behold, as 
the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O 
house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concern- 
ing a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and 
to pull down, and to destroy it ; if that nation against 
whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent 
of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what 
instant I will speak concerning a nation, and concerning a 
kingdom, to build up and to plant it, if it do evil in my sight, 
that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good 
wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jer. xviii : i-io. 

Here we find that this parable was used concerning the 
nation or kingdom of Israel : " As the clay is in the pot- 
ter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel!' But 
are we taught that nations and kingdoms are eternally and 
unconditionally ordained to prosperity or destruction? 
Surely, no language could have been employed which would 
teach more clearly the opposite. Though God may have 
spoken against a nation or kingdom to destroy it, yet if it 
turn from its wickedness for which it was condemned, He 
will turn from the evil which He said He would bring upon 
it. And though He may have spoken in favor of a king- 
dom or a nation to build and to prosper it, yet if it do evil, 
then He will turn from the good wherewith He said He 
would benefit it. True, the figure shows that God had the 
power to bless and prosper a nation, or to pluck up and 
destroy it — and who doubts this? — but the figure also 
shows that He will exercise His power in the salvation or 
destruction of nations, as they obey or rebel against Him, 
and not according to eternal decrees. The house of Israel 
7 



74 T, IE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

as a nation and kingdom failed to accomplish the object 
designed in its creation, and hence was marred in the hand 
of the Potter. He therefore gave it a less honorable form, 
but did not cast it away entirely. They were captured, 
carried into Babylon, and there remained as slaves and cap- 
tives in a strange land for seventy years. This they might 
have averted by turning from their wickedness ; for God 
said, as we have already quoted, that " if that nation against 
whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent 
of the evil that I thought to do unto them." They did not 
turn away ; hence the threatened punishment came upon 
them. But it did not amount to their destruction. It was 
corrective as well as punitive, and brought them to repent- 
ance in Babylon ; hence the Potter took the vessel that 
had been seventy years in dishonor, and made it again a 
vessel unto honor by restoring the Jews to their nation- 
ality. 

The reader would do well to bear in mind that a vessel 
in dishonor is not necessarily a vessel of wrath fitted to 
destruction ; for it may yet turn from its wickedness and 
be made a vessel unto honor. But at the time the apostle 
wrote, the Jewish kingdom had not only been marred in the 
hand of the Potter, but it was fast approaching the condi- 
tion of a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction. The prophet 
gave a most appalling picture of the punishment which 
threatened them and very soon came upon them : " Thus 
saith the Lord, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and 
take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of 
the priests, and go forth unto the valley of the son of Hin- 
nora, which is by the entry of the east gate, and pro- 
claim there the words that I shall tell thee." Jer. xix: i, 2. 
After recounting the wickedness of which they had been 
guilty, he pronounces their doom as follows : " Therefore, 
behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 75 

no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of 
Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. And I will make 
void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place ; and 
I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, 
and by the hand of them that seek their lives : and their 
carcasses will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, 
and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city 
desolate, and a hissing : every one that passeth thereby shall 
be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. 
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and 
the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one 
the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, where- 
with their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall 
straiten them. Then shalt thou break the bottle in the 
sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto them, 
Thus saith the Lord of hosts ; Even so will I break this 
people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that 
can not be made whole again : and they shall bury them in 
Tophet, till there be no place to bury." Jer. xix: 6-n. 

While God was bearing with these vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction, Christ came, as the promised seed of 
Abraham, their father, in whom all the families of the 
earth were to be blessed ; but the Jews were unwilling that 
all families of the earth should enjoy salvation with them : 
hence the apostle alludes to the potter and the clay to 
teach them that when their government was marred in his 
hand, it was his prerogative to make of it just such govern- 
ment as pleased him. As the stubbornness and rebellion of 
the Jews caused them to be carried into Babylon, so their re- 
maining stubbornness and rebellion prevented them from 
uniting with the Gentiles in forming one grand spiritual 
family most honorable of all others ; hence, at the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem by Titus and his army, their nationality 
was literally destroyed, as predicted by the Lord through 



j6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Jeremiah, and enforced by breaking the potter's earthen 
bottle into fragments, which could never be united again. 
While the material was clay it could be given another 
form when marred in the hand of the potter, but after it 
became an "earthen bottle" and was broken, the wreck 
was complete : " Even so will I break this people and 
this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that can not 
be made whole again." 

But notwithstanding this was said of the people and the 
city, it took individuals, collectively considered, to make 
up the people; hence said the apostle: "What if God, will- 
ing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, 
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath 
fitted to destruction, and that he might make known the 
riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had 
afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, 
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles ? As he 
saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which 
were not my people ; and her beloved, which was not be- 
loved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where 
it was said unto them, Ye are not my people ; there shall 
they be called the children of the living God." Rom. ix : 
22-26. 

Thus the apostle most clearly proves to the Jews, by 
quotation from their own prophets, that the Gentiles, who 
had not been God's people, were to become the children 
of the living God. Hence the argument can not apply to 
individuals only as making up the classes of which the 
apostle spake. Surely, we can not be mistaken here. But 
suppose we are, and the apostle intended to make a per- 
sonal application of the argument, what then ? Will the 
parable of the potter, and the clay, thus applied, prove the 
Calvinistic theory of unconditional election and reproba- 
tion ? Let us see. If the clay marred in the hand of the 



CALVINISTJC PROOFS EXAMINED. JJ 

potter, it was not because he designed it to be so, for he 
intended to make a good vessel of it. Even so God wills 
not the death of any, but that all come to repentance and 
live. Calvinists teach that the non-elect were vessels of 
wrath from before the beginning of time; were never 
designed for any thing else — nay, were unchangeably 
ordained to dishonor and wrath. 

Again : The potter did not make a vessel that he might 
destroy it himself. If the clay so marred in his hand that it 
was not fit for the more honorable vessel at first designed, he 
worked it over and made of the same lump another vessel 
of less value ; but it was nevertheless made for use or sale, 
not that he might himself destroy it. But, according to 
the theory in question, God, the great Potter, made the 
non-elect to be vessels of wrath, and fitted them for de- 
struction, that He might exhibit His power in their 
destruction — this being the object of their creation. 

Once more: When the lump of clay marred in the 
hand of the potter, so that it would not make a vessel unto 
honor, as first contemplated, he worked it .over and made 
of the same lump another vessel as it pleased him. The 
theory will not allow the purposes of God to fail ; on the 
contrary, they insist that his vessels always come out just 
as He designed them. If so, the clay never mars in His 
hand, and hence there is no fitness in the parable. 
Indeed, they seem to have two lumps — one elect, and the 
other reprobate ; and if the clay came from the elect 
lump, it can not make a reprobate vessel, for not an atom 
of that elect material can be lost: on the contrary, if the 
clay came from the reprobate lump, no mechanical skill can 
work it over and make an elect vessel of it. The theory 
makes every man elect or reprobate from before time 
began, and he must so remain while eternity endures. 
Therefore the parable will not fit Calvinism anywhere. 



78 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

After mentioning many vices to be avoided, Paul says : 
" In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and 
of silver, but also of wood and of earth ; and some to honor 
and some to dishonor. If a man, therefore, purge himself 
from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor sanctified and 
meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good 
work." 2 Tim. ii : 20, 21. He speaks of "the house of 
God" as the "church of the living God." I Tim. iii : 15. 
Then in the church or house of God there are vessels com- 
parable to gold and silver, wood and earth ; some more and 
some less honorable, while others are a disgrace to the 
cause they profess to love. And Paul here clearly shows 
that this difference is made, not by an immutable decree 
of God, but by the parties themselves : " If a man there- 
fore purge himself from these " — not if God purge him, but 
if he purge himself- — " he shall be a vessel unto honor." 

But let us pursue the apostle's argument. He says, 
" Even so then at this present time there is a remnant ac- 
cording to the election of grace." Rom. xi : 5. As there 
had been seven thousand men, in the days of Elias, who 
had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal, even so there 
was still a remnant when Paul wrote who had accepted 
salvation upon the terms of the gospel of the grace of God, 
and these are they of whom he spake, saying, " Israel hath 
not obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election 
hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." Ver. 7. This 
remnant of Israel who accepted salvation upon gospel 
terms are denominated the election, and the rest were 
blinded ; that is, all Israel except this remnant elected to 
salvation. Now, are we to conclude that those who were 
blinded were eternally reprobate ? Before any one so affirms, 
let him remember that Israel was once God's elect people, 
and he must be prepared to show how they became 
reprobate after having been eternally, immutably, and un- 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 79 

conditionally elect, according to his theory. Leaving Cal- 
vinism to grope its way out of this difficulty as best it can, 
let us go on to see whether or not it is possible for these 
reprobates to become elect again. 

In the 8th verse we learn that God gave these reprobates 
" the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and 
ears that they should not hear." In the 9th verse, Paul 
quotes David thus : " Let their table be made a snare and a 
trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them ; 
let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow 
down their back always." Please remember that this was 
all said of those who were not of the election of grace, 
but were reprobates. Now let us read on : " I say then, 
Have they [these reprobates] stumbled that they should 
fall ? God forbid : but rather through their fall salvation 
is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 
Now if the fall of them [Then they were not eternally 
reprobate, else they could not have fallen] be the riches 
of the world, and the diminishing of them [The creed says 
they can neither be increased nor diminished] the riches 
of the Gentiles ; how much more their fullness ? For I 
speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of 
the Gentiles, I magnify mine office : if by any means I 
may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and 
might save some of them [the reprobates]. For if the 
casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what 
shall the receiving of them [reprobates] be, but life from 
the dead?" Ver. 11-15. Then comes the figure of the 
olive-tree, showing that the Jews, or natural branches, 
were broken off because of their unbelief, and the Gen- 
tiles were grafted in. But even they must be faithful ; for 
said he: "If God spared not the natural branches, take 
heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the 
goodness and severity of God : on them which fell, sever- 



SO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his 
goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. [Ah, how 
can they be cut off if the number of the elect can neither 
be increased nor diminished ?] And they also, if they 
abide not still in unbelief shall be graffed in ; for God is 
able to graft them in again/' Ver. 21-23. Thus repro- 
bate Israel may again be elect if they will : " For I would 
not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, 
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness 
in part is happened to Israel [those not elect], until the 
fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel 
shall be saved." Vers. 25, 26. Is it possible that these 
blinded reprobates may yet be saved ? They may be saved, 
if Paul is good authority : " For as ye [Gentiles] in times 
past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy 
through their [Jews] unbelief; even so have these also not 
believed, that through your mercy they [reprobate Jews] 
also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them 
all in unbelief, [What for ? That he might damn them all ? 
No, but] that he might have mercy upon all." Ver. 30-32. 
Where, then, is the eternal decree of unconditional elec- 
tion and reprobation ? Well may the apostle exclaim, " O 
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge 
of God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways 
past finding out " only as He has revealed them. 

We come next to examine the same subject as taught 
in Paul's letter to the Ephesians. Will the reader open 
the divine volume and very carefully read the letter from 
its beginning to the 6th verse of the fourth chapter, inclu- 
sive ? We have not room to transcribe it all, but every 
word deserves to be indelibly written upon every human 
heart. 

We will begin with that portion of it supposed to give 
support to the theory of unconditional election. The 



CALVINIST1C PROOFS EXAMINED. 8 1 

apostle says : " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual bless- 
ings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath 
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that 
we should be holy and without blame before him in love : 
having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by 
Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of 
his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he 
hath made us accepted in the beloved : in whom we have 
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, 
according to the riches of his grace ; wherein he hath 
abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence ; having 
made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to 
his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself; that 
in the fullness of times he might gather together in one 
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which 
are on earth ; even in him : in whom also we have obtained 
an inheritance, being predestinated according to the pur- 
pose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will : that we should be to the praise of his own glory, 
who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after 
that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salva- 
tion." Eph. i : 3-13. 

Without stopping to inquire after the meaning of the 
word world in the 4th verse, let us proceed to analyze the 
passage and see whether or not there is any thing like 
unconditional election in it : "According as he hath chosen 
us in him before the foundation of the world." Here we 
learn that certain persons were chosen in Christ before a 
certain time, but there is not yet a word as to whether 
they were chosen conditionally or imconditionally. This 
must be learned somewhere else. For what were they 
chosen ? " That we should be holy and without blame be- 
fore him in love." This is the character to be worn ly the 



82 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

persons chosen, and it clearly shows that the apostle was 
speaking of a class, and not of individuals as such. What 
more ? " Having predestinated us unto the adoption of 
children by Jesus Christ to himself." And how is it pre- 
destinated that children shall be adopted into God's family 
by Jesus Christ ? "According to the good pleasure of his 
will." Then what is the good pleasure of his will in this 
matter? That the gospel shall be preached "among all 
nations, to every creature." " He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." Mark xvi : 16. Then it is the good pleasure of 
His will that every creature who will believe the gospel 
and be baptized shall be saved, and all who are thus saved 
are His children by Jesus Christ, through whom He gave 
the conditions of adoption. This is all plain ; let us go on : 
" Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, ac- 
cording to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in 
himself." And what is the mystery of His will thus made 
known ? " That in the dispensation of the fullness of times 
he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both 
which are in heaven and on earth ; even in him : in whom 
also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated 
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things 
after the counsel of his own will." Now, if these persons 
were unconditionally and personally predestinated to this 
inheritance, then it follows that Universalism and not Cal- 
vinism gets the benefit of the quotation, for we have seen 
that He purposed to gather together all things in Christ — 
not the elect few, but all things. To whom was this made 
known, and what is the meaning of it ? " By revelation 
he made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in 
few words " — back yonder in the first chapter — " whereby, 
when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the 
mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 83 

known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his 
holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit/' Eph. iii : 3-5. 
To whom was this long-concealed mystery made known by 
the Spirit ? His holy apostles and prophets. Then they 
were the persons referred to by the pronouns we and us, 
from the 3d to the 12th verse (inclusive) of the first 
chapter, to whom this mystery was made known, as Paul 
wrote afore in few words in the 1 oth verse of that chapter. 
And what was this long-concealed mystery ? " That the 
Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and 
partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." Eph. 
iii : 6. Then these holy apostles and prophets were the 
persons chosen in Christ before the foundation of the 
world, that they as a class should be holy and without 
blame before Him in love ; and though as a class they were 
of this character, yet as an individual, one of them be- 
trayed the Lord for money. Does this prove the doctrine 
of unconditional election ? 

That we may see, if possible, more clearly that the pro- 
nouns we and us in this context do refer to a particular 
class of persons of which Paul was one, and that the call- 
ing of these did not embrace all the elect as taught by Cal- 
vinists, we will pursue the connection a little further. The 
apostle says, " That we should be to the praise of his 
glory, who first trusted in Christ." Here is the same pro- 
noun we, including Paul and others, to whom he referred as 
the called and predestinated, " who first trusted in Christ. 
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of 
truth, the gospel of your salvation." Vers. 12, 13. Now, 
if we who first trusted in Christ included all the elect, who 
were the ye who also trusted in him after they heard the 
gospel of their salvation ? The apostles and prophets were 
of the Jews who first trusted in Christ, and the Ephesians 
were Gentiles, who also trusted in Him after they heard 



84 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the gospel : " Wherefore remember, that ye being in time 
past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision 
by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made 
by hands ; that at that time ye were without Christ, being 
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers 
from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and with- 
out God in the world ; but now, in Christ Jesus, ye, who 
sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of 
Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, 
and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between 
us ; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law 
of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to make 
in himself of twain one new man [or church], so making 
peace ; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one 
body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby ; and 
came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to 
them that were nigh ; for through him we both have access 
by one Spirit unto the Father." Eph. ii : 11-18. There- 
fore, " keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 
There is one body [composed of Jews and Gentiles], and 
one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your call- 
ing ; one Lord [who died for both Jew and Gentile], one 
faith [common to Jew and Gentile], one baptism [enjoined 
upon all, for there is] one God and Father of all, who is 
above all, and through all, and in you all," if Christians, 
whether Jew or Gentile. Eph. iv : 3-6. 

The next passage to which we are referred as proving 
eternal unconditional election is found, 2 Thess. ii : 13, 14 : 
" But we are bound to give thanks to God for you, brethren 
beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning 
chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the 
Spirit and belief of the truth : whereunto he called you 
by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 85 

In examining this passage, it is important to inquire 
what beginning it was from which these persons were 
elected or chosen. Was it the beginning of eternity? 
Eternity had no beginning. Was it the beginning of time ? 
Then the theory of eternal election is false, for time had a 
beginning, and is not eternal. As the election was through 
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, it is im- 
possible that the election could have antedated the belief 
of the truth through which it was effected. John says : 
* I write no new commandment unto you, but an old com- 
mandment which ye had from the beginning. The old 
commandment is the word which ye have heard from the 
beginning." 1 John ii : 7. And again : " Let that there- 
fore abide in you, which ye have heard from the begin- 
ning." Ver. 24. Now, what beginning was this ? Surely, 
not the beginning of time, the beginning of the world, or 
any other time or thing which began before their birth, for 
this they " heard from the beginning? Nor was it the be- 
ginning of the Christian dispensation, for it is most likely 
that none of them heard the gospel until long after that 
beginning. Then it was the beginning of their spiritual 
life — the time of their conversion. From that beginning 
they had heard the gospel — had the old commandment, 
and knew God ; hence to this beginning the apostle un- 
doubtedly refers ; and we suppose Paul refers to the same 
beginning from which the Thessalonians were chosen to 
salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of 
the truth. Were we to say that the sheriff was elected 
through the votes of the people, no one would understand 
that he was elected before he received the votes of the 
people. When Paul said persons were "saved through 
faith" (Eph. ii : 8), he certainly did not mean to teach that 
they were saved through faith before they had faith. Then, 
when the same apostle said that the Thessalonians were 



86 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
truth, he surely did not mean that they had been chosen 
from before time began, or at any time before they be- 
lieved the truth and had their hearts purified by it. 

But we are referred to I Pet. i : 2, where the apostle ad- 
dresses his brethren as " elect according to the foreknowl- 
edge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, 
unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 
This election is according to the divine foreknowledge, 
not contrary to it. The whole scheme of redemption was 
in the mind of God before it was revealed to man. There- 
fore, when the conditions of salvation were embodied in 
the gospel and proclaimed to the world, they were pre- 
sented just as they had existed in His mind before ; hence, 
when any one complies with the conditions of salvation, 
he is elected according to the foreknowledge of God, 
because elected according to a plan previously known to 
Him. When we say of the governor that he was elected 
according to the constitution of the State, we do not mean 
that the constitution elected him, but that he was elected 
by a majority of the votes of the people, according to the 
provisions of the constitution, and not against its pro- 
visions. So when any one obeys the gospel, he is elected 
according to the foreknowledge of God, because God fore- 
knew the provisions of the gospel ; but the foreknowledge 
of God did not elect him. 

Finally, we come to examine the last passage in the 
Bible which we have ever known brought to the support 
of unconditional election and reprobation : " The beast 
which thou sawest was, and is not ; and shall ascend out 
of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition ; and they that 
dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose names were not 
written in the book of life from the foundation of the 
world,) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 8? 

and yet is." Rev. xvii : 8. It is the parenthetical portion 
of the quotation which is believed by some to give support 
to the doctrine in question. As there are persons here 
spoken of whose names were not written in the book of 
life from the foundation of the world, it is inferred that 
there are persons whose names were so written. This, we 
admit, is a legitimate inference, but inferences rarely ever 
stop within proper bounds. It is further inferred that when 
a person's name is written in the book of life, his interest 
in heaven is secure to him ; hence there are those whose 
names were written in the book of life and made sure of 
heaven from the foundation of the world, without regard 
to any thing done by them, whether good or evil. This is 
not deducible from the language of the text, and is at war 
with the spirit of the whole Bible, which rewards or pun- 
ishes man according to his works, and is most plainly con- 
tradicted in the same book from which the quotation is 
made. " He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in 
white raiment ; and I will not blot out his name out of the 
book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, 
and before his angels." Rev. iii : 5. Now, let us apply the 
same rules of inference here that were admitted applicable 
to the other passage. As it is said of certain persons that 
their names were not written in the book of life, it is in- 
ferred that the names of others were so written : then when 
the Lord said of a certain character, " I will not blot out 
his name out of the book of life," the inference is equally 
clear that the names of others would be blotted out of the 
book of life. From this conclusion there is no escape ; 
hence the fact that the name of a person is written in the 
book of life is not conclusive proof that he will finally be 
saved in heaven. " For I testify unto every man that 
heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man 
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 



88 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

plagues that are written in this book : and if any man shall 
take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, 
God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and 
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written 
in this book." Rev. xxii : 18, 19. Then, a man may have a 
part in the book of life, and yet so conduct himself that it 
may be taken away from him. Nor was this a new thought 
first revealed to John in the isle of Patmos ; for when 
Aaron made the golden calf, and the children of Israel 
were threatened with destruction for worshiping it, Moses 
prayed the Lord to forgive their sin, and said : " If not, blot 
me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 
And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned 
against me, him will I blot out of my book." Ex. xxxii : 
32, 33. As sin or disobedience causes God to erase or blot 
out the names of persons from the book of life, and obedi- 
ence causes their names to be retained or not blotted out 
(Rev. iii : 5), is it not probable that obedience caused their 
names to be enrolled when first written in the book ? 
" They that feared the Lord spake often one to another, 
and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of re- 
membrance was written before him for them that feared 
the Lord, and that thought upon his name." Mai. iii: 16. 
This book seems to have been written before the Lord for 
those who feared Him and thought upon His name. It 
will be observed that the names were written from, not 
before, the foundation of the world. Then, as persons have 
lived and feared the Lord, their names were inserted in 
God's book. We do not suppose that God had a literal 
book in which the names of His people were written before 
or after the foundation of the world ; but in the mind of 
God they are recognized as His from the time they bear 
His name and become obedient to His will. If God had 
a literal book in which the literal name of every person 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 89 

was written before time began, it follows that all parents 
and others concerned in giving children their names must 
have been inspired in order that they might give the child 
the name designed for it, otherwise they might miss the 
name occasionally. One thing is certain, however, whether 
the book be literal or figurative, viz : that names, though 
written in the book of life, are still liable to be blotted out 
of it ; and surely, while the names of any persons remain 
written in the book of life, they are elect. Jesus said to 
his disciples, " Rejoice, because your names are written 
in heaven." Luke x : 20. Paul told his brethren that they 
had come " to the general assembly and church of the first- 
born, which are written in heaven." Heb. xii : 23. To an- 
other he said : " I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help 
those women which labored with me in the gospel, with 
Clement also, and with other of my fellow laborers, whose 
names are in the book of life." Phil, iv : 3. After John 
described the heavenly Jerusalem, he said: "There shall 
in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth ; neither 
whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie : but 
they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Rev. 
xxi: 27. 

From all these quotations it is evident that, while 
the names of persons are written in the book of life, in 
heaven they are elect ; but when their names have been so 
written and blotted out of the book of life, they become 
reprobates, and, unless reinstated, must be lost. Therefore 
the number of the elect can be diminished, and hence the 
doctrine of eternal unconditional election and reprobation 
can not be true. 

Now, we believe we have examined every passage of 
Holy Writ supposed to favor the doctrine of personal un- 
conditional election and reprobation, and we feel sure that 
many readers will rejoice with us in the conviction that no 
8 



90 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

such monstrous absurdity is taught in God's holy word. 
We conscientiously believe it not only antagonistic to the 
teaching of the Bible, but contrary to the spirit and genius 
of the Christian religion, and at war with the love, mercy, 
and justice of God. He had the entire control of man's 
creation, and certainly would not have created him, having 
unalterably consigned the greater portion of his posterity 
to eternal misery, dishonor, and wrath, for no fault of their 
own, or any thing in their power to prevent. How God 
could be glorified by the eternal punishment of man, in 
order to carry out a decree made by Himself before the 
creation of man, is a matter utterly incomprehensible to 
us. The doctrine makes God an embodiment of cruelty, 
tyranny, and oppression too horrible to contemplate ; and 
we see not how any one who believes it can acceptably 
obey God. " He that cometh to God must believe that he 
is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek 
him." Heb. xi : 6. Do Calvinists believe that God 
will reward the reprobates, however diligently they may 
seek Him ? 

How can he who believes himself either one of the elect 
or one of the reprobate, and that therefore there is noth- 
ing he can do that will in any way affect his salvation, ask 
such a question as, " What must I do to be saved ?" (Acts 
xvi : 30) or in faith obey any command as a condition of sal- 
vation f We speak with all due respect when we say we 
think such a thing impossible until such persons can cor- 
rect their faith on this subject. If we believed it, we would 
never make another effort to persuade any person to make 
his calling and election sure ; because, if the doctrine is 
true, no effort which man can make in the way of obe- 
dience to God can in the least increase his chances for 
future bliss, or in any way change the final destiny of 
any one of Adam's race. 



CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED. 9 1 

Let us turn our backs upon the theory, and our eyes 
to the word of the Lord, and with hearts lifted in grat- 
itude to God, seek to realize the grand truth perceived 
by Peter at the house of Cornelius — "that God is no 
respecter of persons : but in every nation he that feareth 
him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." 
Acts x : 34, 35. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 

FINALLY, we come to examine the last strong fortress 
of Calvinism, which it holds in alliance with Univer- 
salis™ by the common consent of those who oppose them. 
It is based upon the assumption that God, from all eternity, 
foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to 
pass ; therefore, He foreknew just who and how many 
would be saved, and who, if any, would be lost. And as 
the final destiny of every person must be exactly as fore- 
seen by God, it follows that such foreknowledge amounted 
to an immutable decree. If God knew, ere time began, 
that Cain would kill his brother, then there was no possi- 
bility left to Cain to avoid the deed. Had there been such 
possibility, Cain might have availed himself of it, and 
failed to do that which God foreknew he would do, thereby 
falsifying the foreknowledge of God. If God foreknew that 
Cain, or any one else, would act wickedly and be lost, then 
there was no possibility left him to have acted righteously 
and to have been saved ; for had he availed himself of 
such a possibility and been saved, it would have been in 
despite of God's foreknowledge to the contrary. Ergo, as 
God foreknew every thing, He must have decreed every 
thing ; and as He foreknew the destiny of every man, it 
follows that He decreed the destiny which man had no 
power to avert. 

We believe this is a fair exhibit of the Calvinistic side 
of the argument ; but Universalism applies the same prin- 

(92) 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 93 

ciple to all men that Calvinism applies to the elect. It 
assumes that God will not punish man for that which he 
had no power to avoid (and yet we see that he is so pun- 
ished every day) ; and as all must pursue the course marked 
out for them in the foreknowledge of God, none will be pun- 
ished for carrying out the immutable purposes of Jehovah. 
Forgetting that God has such attributes as justice and 
vengeance, it draws largely upon His love, goodness, and 
mercy: "God is infinite love, and must have desired the 
salvation of all men. As He foreknew the destiny of every 
man, and had power to create only such as seemed good to 
Him, He would, of course, create only such as He foresaw 
would be saved. Hence all men were created for salva- 
tion, and will finally be saved." 

Thus we have presented the arguments respectively 
drawn by Calvinists and Universalists from what they are 
pleased to call the unlimited foreknowledge of God; and it 
is but the part of candor to admit that they are not with- 
out some degree of plausibility. There are, however, at 
least three sides to this argument, viz : the Calvinist's side, 
the Universalist's side, and the Lord's side, and of the 
three we prefer the last. Many have been the efforts to 
harmonize the free-agency of man and the unlimited fore- 
knowledge of God, and though we have read every thing 
written on the subject that has fallen under our notice, we 
have never yet read a plausible theory on the subject. 
From our stand-point, therefore, the premises are doubt- 
ful, to say the least of them : may we not, then, with be- 
coming reverence, inquire whether or not God eternally 
foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to 
•pass ? 

In approaching the examination of the subject we wish 
to state most plainly that we pretend not to comprehend 
the mind and purposes of God, only as He has revealed 



94 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

them to us. We pretend not to have fathomed the depths 
of the wisdom and knowledge of the infinite Jehovah. With 
Paul, we are ready to exclaim : " O the depth of the riches 
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearch- 
able are his judgments, and his ways past finding out ! for 
who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been 
his counselor ? " Rom. xi : 33, 34. Oh, the insignificance 
of man in the presence of God ! Indeed, it seems to us 
unsafe to build a theological system upon an incomprehen- 
sible foundation ; hence those who base their theory upon the 
supposed attributes of God, to say the least of them, are 
liable to build upon the sand. Do they not thereby say 
that they have sounded the depths of the wisdom and knowl- 
edge of God, and have found them extending to a perfect 
knowledge of every thing that ever has or will come to 
pass ? Do they not, in theory, say that they have searched 
His judgments, and have found that a definite number were 
approved, and the reprobates condemned, before time began, 
or that all were unconditionally approved? Do they not 
say that they have searched His ways and known His mind 
to perfection, and can therefore safely build a theological 
system, involving the destiny of the human race, upon 
their knowledge of the attributes of God ? We may know 
God's will, and the extent of His knowledge where He has 
revealed them to us, but beyond this we dare not go. 
When God speaks, it is the province of man to hear and 
believe, whether he can or can not see to the end. When 
God commanded Abraham to go, he went, not knowing 
whither he went (Heb. xi : 8) ; hence, when God says He 
purposed to do any thing, we must accept it as true, 
whether He did it or not ; and when He says He did not 
know a thing, it is unsafe to say that He did know it, His 
word to the contrary notwithstanding. But has God spoken 
to man on the subject ? Let us see : " And God saw that 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 95 

the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that 
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only 
evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had 
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have 
created from the face of the earth." Gen. vi : 5-7. Now, 
if God knew before He created man just how wicked he 
would be, and what he would do, what can this mean ? 
"God saw that the wickedness of man was great." Did 
He not always see? And why did God grieve over a 
result which was as plain to Him before He created 
man as when He saw the overt acts of wickedness per- 
formed ? And if the wickedness of man was such as to 
cause God to destroy him, why would not this wickedness 
foreseen have prevented his creation at first ? If seeing 
the wickedness of man caused God to repent making him, 
and to determine to destroy him, does not it follow that 
He did not know, prior to his creation, how wicked he 
would be ? Surely, He would not have created man for the 
purpose of bringing grief to His own heart, and destruc- 
tion to His creature. But why did God not know the 
wickedness of the antediluvians, from eternity ? Cer- 
tainly, it was not because He was not capable of know- 
ing future events, for we know He did foretell many 
things long before they came to pass. The Psalmist says, 
11 Great is our Lord, and of great power : his understand- 
ing is infinite" Ps. cxlvii 15. " Could there be any thing 
unknown to him whose understanding is infinite ? " Let 
us see. God is as infinite in power as He is in tmderstand- 
ing. No one, we suppose, will deny that He is omnipotent 
as well as omniscient, yet there are some things He can not 
do ; e. g, God can not lie. Titus i : 2 ; Heb. vi : 18. God 
could not have made two hills without a low place between 
them. Then if there are some things which God could not 



g6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which 
He DID not know, though omniscie?it? But it may be said 
that God can not lie, because it is incompatible with His 
nature, and not because He has not power to lie. Very 
well; then He did not know, before making man, just how 
wicked he would be, simply because such foreknowledge 
would have been incompatible with the free-agency and 
responsibility of man. To be responsible, man must be 
free. If God knew before He gave Adam the law in the 
garden that he would violate it when given, then he was 
not free; for he could not have falsified God's foreknowl- 
edge if iie would: hence to violate the law was a necessity. 
The great scheme of salvation conceived by Infinite Wis- 
dom contemplated human responsibility based upon 
freedom of will, and God had power to avoid the fore- 
knowledge of every thing incompatible with His attri- 
butes and the scheme of salvation devised by Him. He 
who says God could not avoid knowing every thing, limits 
the power of Him who is omnipotent. God can limit the 
exercise of His own attributes, but it is dangerous for man 
to assume such power. We dare not limit the knowledge 
of God ; but if He saw fit to limit the exercise of His own 
knowledge, we fear to say He had not the power and the 
right to do so. Infinite power does not require God to do 
every thing, but it implies the ability to do whatever is in 
harmony with His attributes and purposes. He could in- 
stantly kill every man who violates His law, but, in great 
mercy, He has seen fit to limit the exercise of His power, and 
permits us to live : so, in the morning of the first day, God 
could have looked down the stream of time and have seen 
the secret intentions of every heart that would ever be 
subjected to His law, but, in infinite mercy, He saw fit to 
avoid a knowledge of every thing incompatible with the 
freedom of the human zvill and the system of government 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 97 

devised by Him for man. Does any one say God had not 
power to do this? then let him explain how it was that 
God grieved over the wickedness of man when He saw 
that it was great in the earth ; yea, let him explain why it 
was that the wickedness of man caused God to repent that 
He had made him, if He as clearly saw it before He made 
him as afterward ; and let him further explain why it was that 
the wickedness of man, which caused God to determine to 
destroy him from the earth after He had made him, if 
clearly foreseen by Him, did not prevent God from creating 
man at first. 

God exercises His attributes through means, or without 
them, as may best serve His purposes. When He would 
exert His power in the creation of any thing, He said, Let 
it be, and it was. When He would bear witness to the 
divine character of His Son, a voice came from the eternal 
throne, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
well pleased." Matt, iii: 17; xvii : 5. When He would 
rebuke the madness of Balaam, He enabled the beast on 
which the ungrateful wretch rode, to speak in the language 
of man. Num. xxii : 28. When He would rebuke Bel- 
shazzar for the unholy use to which he applied the sacred 
vessels of His house, He caused the fingers of a man's 
hand, zvhere there was no man, to write the king's doom on 
the plastered walls of his own palace. Dan. v: 5. When 
He gave His law to the Jews at Sinai, He inscribed it on 
tables of stone with His own finger ; but when He estab- 
lished the new covenant, He wrote His laws upon the hearts 
of His people with the tongues and pens of men. Even 
so He could know or not know whatever He desired to 
know, with or without means. When He would test the 
complaints that had reached Him concerning the wicked- 
ness of the cities of the plains, He said : " Because the cry 
of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is 
9 



98 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they 
have done altogether according to the cry of it which is 
come unto me ; and if not, I will know." Gen. xviii : 20, 21. 
Certainly, God could have known what was going on in 
these cities without going down there to see about it, but 
He declined to know until He employed His angels, in the 
likeness of men, as means for the purpose of obtaining the 
information. But this was not a case of foreknowledge ', but 
simply a case where God made use of means to acquire a 
knowledge of what had already occurred. This is certainly 
true, but does it remove the difficulty ? Did God know, 
before time began, all about the wickedness of these cities, 
and forget it, so as to make it necessary to send His angels 
to acquire a knowledge of that which He had previously 
known ? Surely, no one is prepared to take a position like 
this. Do words mean any thing ? If so, when God said, 
" I will go down now, and see whether they have done alto- 
gether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me ; 
and if not, I will know," what did He mean ? Had He 
always known ? 

" But this language was used in an accommodated 
sense." Was it, indeed ? Then let us seek for its meaning 
in this sense. To whom was it accommodated ? Not to 
God, certainly, for He needed no accommodation. He 
could have made the communication in any set of words 
which contained it, either through a medium or without 
one. Then, if the language was accommodated at all, it 
must have been to Abraham, to whom it was spoken, and 
to us for whose benefit it was recorded ; but if it conveyed 
some other idea than is usually conveyed by the same set 
of words, then we see not how it was accommodated to any 
one. The only way by which language can be accommo- 
dated to any one consists in its adaptation to the compre- 
hension of the party addressed and the thought to be con- 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 99 

veyed by it ; e.g.: If a German would communicate any thing 
to me, he must speak to me in English, as I would not be 
likely to understand him were he to address me in the 
German language. Hence, by speaking English, he would 
accommodate his language to me. But this is not all : 
he must use such English words as would embody the 
thought, otherwise I might still fail to understand him. If 
he wanted to buy a horse of me, and he should say, " I want 
to sell you some goods to-day," I would fail to understand 
him, because the idea of buying a horse is not in the 
words, " I want to sell goods." Nor is this all : he would 
deceive me by using words calculated to convey one thought 
when he designed to convey another. Then when God sub- 
stantially said to Abraham, " I will go down and see whether 
or not things are as reported to me; and if not, I will know" — 
if He meant that He had ahvays seen and always known the 
things spoken of, we insist that the language used not only 
failed to be accommodated to the thought, but was calcu- 
lated to make a false impression upon all before whom it 
might come. Let us try a few other passages of like con- 
struction by the same accommodated rules of interpreta- 
tion. In the same chapter from which we have quoted the 
language in question, God twice said to Abraham, by the 
mouths of the same angelic messengers, " I will return 
unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall 
have a son." Vers. 10, 14. Did God mean that He had 
already returned, and that Sarah had already been blessed 
with the promised son ? Again : The Lord said to Abra- 
ham, " I will make thee exceeding fruitful." Did He 
mean that Abraham had always been fruitful ? " I will 
make nations of thee." Did He mean that nations had 
always been made of Abraham ? -* I will give unto thee, 
and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a 
stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting posses- 



IOO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

sion." Did He mean that He had, from eternity, given the 
land of Canaan to Abraham ? Once more : When Jesus 
said, "On this rock I will build my church" (Matt, xvi : 
1 8), did He mean that His church had always been built? 
If not, how can we accommodate the language " I will 
know" to the thought "I have always known ?" 

When Abraham, in obedience to the command of God, 
had placed his beloved son upon the sacrificial altar, and 
had stretched forth his hand, and taken the knife to slay 
his son, "the angel of the Lord called unto him out of 
heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham. And he said, Here 
am I. And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither 
do thou any thing unto him ; for now I know that thou 
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine 
only son, from me." Gen. xxii : n, 12. What can this 
mean ? "Now I know that thou fearest God." Did He always 
know it ? Nay, how did He then know it ? "Seeing thou 
hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me." Does 
not this language imply that God saw in Abraham a degree 
of faithfulness unseen before ? Paul says God tried Abra- 
ham here. Heb. xi: 17. Why did God try him, if He 
knew perfectly well what Abraham would do before He 
tried him ? But it is said that this trial of Abraham was 
to show him the strength of his own faith. Then God 
should have said, " Now you know you fear God, because 
yozi see you have not withheld your son, your only son, 
from me." It occurs to us that an accommodation of lan- 
guage to thought would require a change like this. 

Respecting the idolatry of the Jews, God, by the mouth 
of His prophet, said : " They have built the high places of 
Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to 
burn their sons and their daughters in the fire ; which I 
commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." 
Jer. vii : 31. Here were things done by men which the 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. IOI 

Lord said came not into His heart. Did He know from 
eternity that which never came into His heart ? But we 
are told that this only means that it never entered into 
God's heart to command the wickedness which they did. 
He plainly says He did not command it before using the 
words " neither came it into my heart." Surely, some- 
thing additional was implied by these words ; if not, why 
use them at all ? Let us examine the construction of the 
quotation. What did they do ? They burnt their chil- 
dren. What was it which God commanded them not ? 
That which they did. What was it that came not into the 
mind of the Lord ? That which they did, the burning of 
their children. In the sentence, " Neither came it into my 
heart," if the pronoun it does not refer to burning their 
sons and daughters in the -fire, then we confess our ina- 
bility to construe it at all. In another place the Lord said : 
"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn 
their sons with fire, for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I 
commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my 
mind." Jer. xix: 5. Let us examine the pronouns in this 
quotation. " Which I commanded them not." To what 
does the relative which refer ? To the act of burning their 
sons with fire. " Nor spake it!' To what does the pro- 
noun it refer ? That which they did, and were commanded 
not. " Neither came it into my mind." Now, to what 
does this it refer ? Certainly, to that which they did, which 
God commanded them not, nor spake it. Unless we take 
the liberty of adding to the word of the Lord, we see not 
how to construe the language otherwise. 

But we are told that these passages are explained by 
another: "They built the high places of Baal, which are 
in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and 
their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; 
which I commanded them not, neither came it into my 



102 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause 
Judah to sin." Jer. xxxii: 35. And how does this passage 
explain the other two ? Perhaps this is explained by the 
other two. If we understand the auxiliary should in the 
sense of would, then we have most perfect harmony in all 
of them. But it matters not which rendering is adopted 
here, for when the passages are all considered they abun- 
dantly show that it never entered into the mind of God that 
they either would or should do the things they did. Let 
it be remembered that Calvinism assumes that God 
eternally and immutably fore-ordained every thing that 
comes to pass. It did come to pass that the Jews did 
these things ; therefore it follows that God fore-ordained 
that they should do them ; and yet He says it never came 
into His mind that they should do them. In another part 
of the argument we invoked the aid of Calvinists to ex- 
plain how God fore-ordained that which never came into 
His mind. All must see that this is impossible, and hence 
God did not fore-ordain these things. Calvinism further 
assumes that whatever was foreknown was fore-ordained : 
then, as these abominations were not fore-ordained, it fol- 
lows that they were not foreknown; hence, even from this 
stand-point, they never entered the mind of the Lord. 
Universalism is also entangled in the meshes of this net, 
for it and Calvinism agree that all things foreknown were 
fore-ordained, and must come to pass accordingly. Let 
Universalists, therefore, join with Calvinists in showing 
how God fore-ordained that which never came into His 
mind ; for whenever they admit that the foreknowledge of 
God does not amount to an immutable decree, and that 
things may turn out otherwise than as foreseen by God, 
then their argument drawn from the unlimited foreknowl- 
edge of God will have been exploded, and the strongest 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 103 

prop which ever gave support to Universalism will have 
been withdrawn. 

When the children of Israel worshiped the golden calf 
made by Aaron at the foot of Sinai, the anger of the Lord 
was kindled against them, and He said to Moses, " Let me 
alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that 
I may consume them : and I will make of thee a great 
nation." Ex. xxxii : 10. Moses interceded for the people 
with arguments too powerful to be resisted. Said he: 
" Wherefore should the Egyptians speak and say, For mis- 
chief did he bring them out to slay them in the mountains, 
and to consume them from the face of the earth ? Turn 
from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy 
people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy serv- 
ants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidest 
unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, 
and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto 
your seed, and they, shall inherit it forever." Vers. 12, 13. 
Was there ever a more powerful speech, of the same length, 
uttered by mortal lips? He reminds the Lord of His 
deliverance of this people, and what His enemies would say 
of His motives in doing so — of His devoted servants whose 
children these were, and His oath of promise to them. 
This speech prevailed, " And the Lord repented of the evil 
which he thought to do unto his people." Ver. 14. Was 
the Lord deceptive in His pretensions of anger to Moses 
against the people ? Were His threats of destruction all 
hypocrisy? The earnest appeals of Moses show that he 
did not so understand them ; yet they were mere sound if 
He knew, when making them, that He would not execute 
them. But He repented of the evil which He thought to 
do unto His people, and did not do that which He thought 
He would do. But if He eternally foreknew every thing 
that comes to pass, it follows that He foreknew He would 



104 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

not do this evil to His people ; hence He knew He would 
not do that which He thought He would do. Can this be true ? 
Is it possible to think we will do that which we know we 
will not do ? Men sometimes say they think they will do 
that which they know, at the time, they will not do ; but 
they do that which it is impossible for God to do when 
they so speak. Surely, we should be slow to cast such an 
imputation upon the God we adore. The inspired Word is 
the measure of our faith; hence, when it says God thought 
He would do a thing, we accept it as true, feeling sure that 
no valid objection can be brought against it. The Book 
of God, to be worthy of its Author, must be harmonious in 
all its teaching. 

But the disciples of the Saviour once said to Him, 
" Now are we sure that thou knowest all things." John 
xvi : 30. And Peter once said, " Lord, thou knowest all 
things; thou knowest that I love thee." John xxi : 17. 
Will the reader bear in mind that it is one thing to know 
all things, and quite another to foreknow all things — one 
thing to know a thing, and quite another thing to know a 
thing before it is a thing, or when it has no existence. If 
we make these texts prove that Jesus had unlimited fore- 
knowledge of every thing that has or will take place, we 
come in conflict with His own word, when he said, " Of that 
day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels 
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." 
Mark xiii : 32. Now, here is one thing which it is certain 
he did not know ; hence the fact that Jesus k?iew all things 
did not imply that He foreknew every thing. But John 
said, "God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all 
things." 1 John iii : 20. Yes, and in just as strong terms 
he said to his brethren, "Ye have an unction from the 
Holy One, and ye know all things." 1 John ii : 20. Then, 
if the fact that God knows all things proves that He fore- 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. 105 

knew all things, the same language proves that the 
disciples to whom John wrote also had unlimited fore- 
knowledge ! Does any one believe this ? Then the lan- 
guage has no application to foreknowledge whatever. 
Further: There is no fact more clearly established than 
that the word all is often used in the Bible to indicate a 
great amount or a great number, when it must not be under- 
stood without limit ; e.g. : It is said that all the people in 
a certain region were baptized by John, and yet many 
rejected the counsel of God against themselves by not 
being so baptized. And even the very words all things 
are used in a limited sense. Paul says charity " beareth 
all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth 
all things." I Cor. xiii : 7. Are we to believe all things, 
whether true or false? Surely not. Then the sum of 
John's teaching was that his brethren, having an unction 
from the Holy One, knew all things about which he was 
writing to them. Then we shall continue to believe that our 
Heavenly Father had power to limit the exercise of His 
knowledge to an extent compatible with the free-agency and 
accountability of man and the scheme of salvation devised 
for him, until we are shown a more excellent way. This 
being so, neither Calvinism nor Universalism can be sus- 
tained by their long cherished hobby, unlimited "fore- 
knowledge ; " but how they will be successfully met by 
those who admit it, is more than we can foreknow. We 
must see it done, then we will, perhaps, know how it has 
been done. 

When we wrote the foregoing we were not aware of a 
single authority, save the Bible, from which we might 
derive the slightest encouragement ; since we sent it to 
press, however, we have found an article from the pen of 
Dr. Adam Clark, from which we make the following very 
significant extract ; not because there is any thing addi- 



106 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tional in it, but that our readers may see that we are, at 
least, in good company : 

"As God's omnipotence implies his power to do all 
things, so God's omniscience implies his power to know 
all things ; but we must take heed that we meddle not with 
the infinite free-agency of this Eternal Being. Though 
God can do all things, he does not all things. Infinite 
judgment directs the operations of his power, so that 
though he can, yet he does not do all things, but only 
such things as are proper to be done. In what is called 
illimitable space, he can make millions of millions of 
systems, but he does not see proper to do this. He can 
destroy the solar system, but he does not do it : he can 
fashion and order, in endless variety, all the different 
beings which now exist, whether material, animal, or in- 
tellectual ; but he does not do this, because He does not 
see it proper to be done. Therefore it does not follow 
that, because God can do all things, therefore he must do 
all things. God is omniscient, and can know all things, but 
does it follow from this that he must know all things ? Is 
he not as free in the volitions of his wisdom as he is in 
the volitions of his power? The contingent as absolute, 
or the absolute as contingent ? God has ordained some 
things as absolutely certain : these he knows as absolutely 
certain. He has ordained other things as contingent: these 
he knows as contingent. It would be absurd to say that 
he foreknows a thing as only contingent which he has 
made absolutely certain. And it would be as absurd to say 
that he foreknows a thing to be absolutely certai7i which, 
in his own eternal counsel, he has made contingent. By 
"absolutely certain" I mean a thing which must be in that 
order, time, place, and form, in which Divine wisdom has 
ordained it to be ; and that it can be not otherwise than this 
infinite counsel has ordained. By "contingent," I mean such 



THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD. IO7 

things as the infinite wisdom of God has thought proper to 
poise on the possibility of being or not being, leaving it to 
the will of intelligent beings to turn the scale. Or con- 
tingejicies are such possibilities, amid the succession of 
events, as the infinite wisdom of God has left to the will of 
intelligent beings to determine, whether any such event 
shall take place or not. To deny this would involve the 
most palpable contradictions, and the most monstrous 
absurdities. If there be no such things as contingencies in 
the world, then every thing is fixed and determined by an 
unalterable decree and purpose of God, and not only all 
free-agency is destroyed, but all agency of every kind, except 
that of the Creator himself, for on this ground God is the 
only operator, either in time or eternity : all created beings 
are only instruments, and do nothing but as impelled and 
acted upon by this almighty and sole Agent. Con- 
sequently, every act is his own, for if he have purposed 
them all as absolutely certain, having nothing contingent in 
them, then he has ordained them to be so; and if no con- 
tingency, then no free-agency, and God alone is the sole 
actor. Hence the blasphemous, though, from the premises, 
fair conclusion, that God is the author of all the evil and 
sin that are in the world, and hence follows that absurdity — 
that, as God can do nothing that is wrong, whatever is, 
is right. Sin is no more sin, a vicious human action is 
no crime, if God have decreed it, and by his foreknowl- 
edge and will impelled the creature to act it. On this 
ground there can be no punishment for delinquencies, for 
if every thing be done as God has predetermined — and his 
determinations must necessarily be all right — then neither 
the instrument nor the agent has done wrong. Thus all 
vice and virtue, praise and blame, merit and demerit, guilt 
and innocence, are at once confounded, and all distinctions 
of this kind confounded with them. Now, allowing the 



108 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

doctrine of the contingency of human actions (and it must 
be allowed in order to shun the above absurdities and 
blasphemies), then we see every intelligent creature ac- 
countable for its own works, and for the use it makes of 
the power with which God has endued it ; and, to grant all 
this consistently, we must also grant that God foresees 
nothing as absolutely and inevitably certain which he has 
made contingent ; and because he has designed it to be 
contingent, therefore he can not know it as absolutely and 
inevitably certain. I conclude that God, although omnis- 
cient, is not obliged, in consequence of this, to know all 
that he can know, no more than he is obliged, because 
he is omnipotent, to do all that he can do!' Commentary 
on Acts ii : 47. 

Although Dr. Clark offers not a single scriptural quota- 
tion or reference in proof of the positions taken, yet we 
regard his reasoning upon the attributes of God, and the 
bearing of foreknowledge upon the free-agency and ac- 
countability of man, as simply irresistible. We have long 
entertained these views, but have never preached them 
from the pulpit, nor until now given them to the press. 
We were forced to them while preparing for a debate with 
a Universalist, some twenty years ago, since which we have 
studied the subject, until a position then cautiously taken 
has become a settled conviction. We feel strengthened by 
finding ourself in company with a man of such power as 
Dr. Clark. 



CHAPTER V. 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 



HAVING previously disposed of unconditional elec- 
tion and reprobation as taught by the Presbyterian 
Confession, we come now to notice another doctrine taught 
by the same authority, as well as by most of the denomina- 
tions, which obtains much more general acceptance than 
the Calvinistic view of election and reprobation, but which 
is equally fatal to the obedience of faith required in the 
gospel, to which we deem it proper to call attention before 
we set out to learn the duty of man in order to his adop- 
tion into the family of God. This is what is called by its 
advocates "Hereditary Total Depravity? 

We will make a few quotations from the Presbyterian 
Confession of Faith, as the highest authority known to us 
that contains this doctrine, which will correctly set it be- 
fore the reader. And we do not make these quotations for 
the purpose of following this doctrine into all its legitimate 
results in detail, but for the purpose of showing its beari7ig 
upon the subject of obedience to God: 

" By this sin (eating the forbidden fruit) they (our first 
parents) fell from their original righteousness and com- 
munion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly 
defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 
They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin 
was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted 

nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from 

(109) 



110 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

them by ordinary generation. From this original corrup- 
tion, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and 
made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, 
do proceed all actual transgressions." 

Now, it seems to us that if this picture correctly repre- 
sents the disposition of the human heart at birth, the 
devil can be no worse. His Satanic Majesty can not be 
more than utterly indisposed, disabled, and opposite to all 
good, and wholly inclined to all evil. Nor can we very 
well see how man can get any worse in the scale of moral 
turpitude. He can not get worse than wholly defiled in 
all the faculties of soul and body — and this is his condi- 
tion at birth, if the doctrine be true— yet Paul tells Tim- 
othy that " evil men and seducers shall wax worse and 
worse." 2 Tim. iii : 13. How can they get worse? 
Wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body ! Op- 
posite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and still 
wax worse and worse ! ! Does not the common observa- 
tion of every man contradict this doctrine ? The theory 
is, as we shall see directly, that this corrupt nature remains 
until the man is converted to Christianity, as some teach, 
while others insist that it remains through life even in 
those truly regenerated. Then we can not be wholly de- 
filed, opposite to all good by nature, for we see many men 
who make no pretension to Christianity at all, quite as 
ready to visit the sick and administer to the wants of the 
poor as many who claim to have had their hearts cleansed 
by the Spirit of God. These persons are surely not op- 
posed to all good while thus doing good ; if they are, then 
their feelings and actions are strangely inconsistent. 

But we are told that from this original corruption do 
proceed all actual transgressions. If this be true, how 
came Adam to sin ? This corruption of nature is the 
cause of all actual transgression, and it was the consequence 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. Ill 

of Adam's sin, but not the cause of it, according to the 
theory, and hence he was not under its influence until 
after he sinned. As this inherited corruption of nature is 
the source of all actual transgression now, what caused his 
transgression then? His transgression must have been 
caused by some other influence than the corruption of na- 
ture supposed to be the consequence of his sin ; and if so, 
why may not the same or similar causes influence others 
now? We are now subject to many temptations from 
which he was then free. He could not have been tempted 
to steal from his neighbor, for there was no one then living 
to be his neighbor, and no one owned any thing but him- 
self. He could not have been tempted to kill, for there 
was no person to kill but his wife. He could not have had 
a temptation to adultery, for the only woman on earth was 
his wife. Notwithstanding he was free from many sources 
of temptation that beset our pathway, he failed in the first 
trial he had of which we have a record. Then, surely, 
other causes than corruption inherited from him on ac- 
count of his sin may cause transgression now. 

But we are told that "this their sin God was pleased, 
according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having 
purposed to order it to his own glory." Chap, vi, sec. I. 
It does not seem to us that "permit" is exactly the word 
here. We have already been told that " God, from all 
eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own 
will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to 
pass." It did come to pass that they ate of the fruit 
whereof God commanded them not to eat. Then does it 
not follow that God not only permitted them to eat, but 
unchangeably ordained that they should eat the fruit and 
violate the law He had given, having " purposed to order 
it to his own glory ?" 

But how God could be glorified by this violation of Hip 



112 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

law, especially if we contemplate its results in the light of 
this theory, we are not very well prepared to see. We 
have been accustomed to think that the best way to glorify 
God is to honor His authority by obedience to His com- 
mands. How could God be glorified by the direct viola- 
tion of His positive command, when it made man wholly 
defiled in all the faculties of soul and body? Did He 
glory in man becoming opposite to all good and wholly in- 
clined to all evil, that He might punish him in hell for- 
ever ? Could there be any justice in placing man under a 
law which God had unchangeably ordained he should 
break ? Was it not downright mockery for God to com- 
mand him to obey when He had previously decreed that 
he should disobey ? 

But was God glorified by the corruption of His creature 
man ? Let us see : " And God saw that the wickedness 
of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination 
of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the 
earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. vi : 5, 6. 
Did God grieve on account of His own glorification ? If 
God was glorified by Adam's sin, the consequence of which 
was the entire corruption of the nature of his offspring, 
from whence flow all actual transgressions, the wickedness 
of the antediluvians was as much the result of it as the 
wickedness of any other people ; hence we can not see 
how He would grieve over the result of an act which He 
had previously determined to order to His own glory, 
and which He had unchangeably ordained should come 
to pass. 

Again : Would God have given man a command that He 
had unchangeably fore-ordained to be broken, that "He 
might subject him to "death, with all miseries, spiritual, 
temporal, and eternal," then tell us that He " so loved the 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 113 

world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting 
life" (John iii : 16), and at the same time restrict the ben- 
efits of His death to a few elect ones, and allow the devil to 
have the many, and thus be glorified by their destruction — 
it being no fault of theirs ? But if all actual transgressions 
proceed from this supposed corruption of nature, it is diffi- 
cult to account for the difference of inclination to sin which 
we see manifested by different persons. We are accus- 
tomed to expect the same cause, when surrounded by the 
same circumstances, to produce the same effect on all oc- 
casions ; yet we see persons, even in the same family, sur- 
rounded by as nearly the same circumstances as human 
beings can be in this life, somewhat differently inclined to 
sin ; and, as circumstances differ, these differences increase, 
until one is a moral, upright man, another a drunkard, an- 
other a thief, and another a murderer. Can any one tell, 
in keeping with this theory, why Cain killed his brother ? 
They were both possessed of the same corrupt nature, and 
precisely to the same extent. Why, then, was one more 
vicious than the other ? We can not increase or intensify 
the meaning of such words as wholly, all, total, etc. We 
can not say more wholly defiled, more all the faculties, 
more all evil, more all good. If all Adam's progeny are 
wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body, opposed 
to all good and wholly inclined to all evil, Cain could not 
have been more corrupt than Abel. And if this corrupt 
nature is the source of all actual transgressions, it was the 
cause of Cain's sin ; and Abel being possessed of this cor- 
ruption of nature to the same extent, would have been 
just as much inclined to kill Cain as Cain would have 
been to kill Abel. Men differ as widely in their inclina- 
tions to sin as it is possible for them to differ in any 
thing, and they could not thus differ if the same corrupt 
10 



114 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

nature influenced all and was possessed by all to the 
same extent. 

But worse still : From our stand-point the theory nec- 
essarily damns every infant that dies in infancy. If all 
infants come into the world with natures inherited from 
our first parents, wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul 
and body, then those who die in infancy must go to hell 
on account of this defilement, or go to heaven in this de- 
filement, or they must have it removed in some way un- 
known to the Bible. The makers of the creed plainly saw 
this difficulty, and attempted to provide for it. Chap, x, 
sec. 3, they tell us that "elect infants, dying in infancy, 
are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, 
who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth." 
Thus they provide for elect infants dying in infancy, but 
they make no effort to save any but the elect, telling us 
plainly that Christ died for none others. 

But the Calvinists are but a very small part of those who 
adopt this theory — how will the others escape ? The Cum- 
berland Presbyterian Confession of Faith substitutes the 
word all for elect, thus : "All infants dying in infancy are re- 
generated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who work- 
eth when, and where, and how he pleaseth." Chap, x, sec. 3. 
And how did the authors know this ? Where is the proof 
that Christ, by the Spirit, removes this depravity from those 
dying in infancy and allows it to remain in the living 
ones? The creed refers us to Luke xviii : 15, 16: "And 
they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch 
them : but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 
But Jesus called them unto him, and said,. Suffer little chil- 
dren to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is 
the kingdom of God." We have two objections to this 
proof: First, These were living and not dead or dying chil- 
dren : how can it, therefore, prove any thing about what 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 115 

the Spirit does for those dying in infancy ? Second, It 
proves just the opposite of infantile depravity. If Jesus had 
said, " Suffer little children to come, and forbid them not, 
that the total depravity and corruption of their little defiled 
hearts may be removed by the Spirit, for of such as they 
will then be is the kingdom of God," then the text would 
have been appropriate. But as it is, it would fill the king- 
dom of God with subjects wholly defiled in all the faculties 
of soul and body, opposed to all good, and wholly inclined 
to all evil. " Suffer little children to come unto me, and 
forbid them not, for of such [not as they will be, but are 
now] is the kingdom of God" — that is, of such total de- 
pravity, and subjects wholly defiled in all the faculties of 
soul and body, is the kingdom of God ! ! ! 

Mr. Jeter, the great Baptist luminary of Virginia, says : 
" Infants dying in infancy, must, by some process known 
or unknown, be freed from depravity — morally renewed or 
regenerated, or they can never be saved — never participate 
in the joys of heaven." Jeter's Campbellism Reexamined, 
pages 51, 52. And on page 49 he says : " I shall now pro- 
ceed to show that, in the case of dying infants and idiots, 
regeneration takes place by the agency of the Spirit, with- 
out the Word." Thus we see that one error assumed and 
adopted creates the necessity for perhaps many others. 
The false assumption that infants are wholly depraved has 
forced upon these authors and their ilk the doctrine of 
infant regeneration and abstract spiritual influences. Nor 
is this all : the doctrine of infant baptism originated here. 
Does any one demand proof? He shall have it. Dr. 
Wall, the most voluminous and authoritative writer that 
has ever wielded a pen in defense of infant baptism, says : 

"And you will see in the following quotations that they 
often conclude the necessity of baptism for the forgive- 
ness of sins, even of a child that is but a day old." Wall's 



Il5 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

History, vol. i, page 48. After making a quotation from 
Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apos- 
tles, and about A. D. 140, our author says: "I recite this 
only to show that in these times, so very near the apos- 
tles, they spoke of original sin affecting all mankind de- 
scended of Adam ; and understood that, besides the 
actual sins of each particular person, there is in our na- 
ture itself, since the fall, something that needs redemption 
and forgiveness by the merits of Christ. And that is or- 
dinarily applied to every particular person by baptism." 
Ibid, 64. 

On pages 104, '05, Dr. Wall quotes Origen, one of the 
most learned of the Greek fathers, as follows : 

" Besides all this, let it be considered, what is the rea- 
son that, whereas the baptism of the Church is given for 
forgiveness of sins, infants also are, by the usage' of the 
Church, baptized ; when, if there were nothing in infants 
that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism 

would be needless to them Infants are baptized 

for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ? Or when 
have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver 
in their case hold good, but according to that sense that 
we mentioned even now : none is free from pollution, though 
his life be but of the length of one day upon the earth ? 
And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of bap- 
tism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants 
are baptized." 

In the writings of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, is a let- 
ter written by a council of sixty-six bishops to one Fidus, 
about the close of the second century. Dr. Wall gives 
that part of this letter which pertains to the subject in 
hand, and says of it : " These bishops held that to suffer 
the infant to die unbaptized was to endanger its salva- 
tion." Wall's History, vol. i, page 139. 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 11/ 

In support of infant baptism, Mr. Wesley says : " If in- 
fants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper sub- 
jects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, they can not 
be saved unless this be washed away by baptism. It has 
been already proved that this original stain cleaves to 
every child of man, and that hereby they are children of 
wrath, and liable to eternal damnation." This comes to 
us not only as written by Mr. Wesley, but it was " Pub- 
lished by order of the General Conference " in New York, 
in 1850. Doctrinal Tracts, page 251. Many other quota- 
tions might be given from various authors held in high 
esteem by the various parties of these days ; but surely 
these are sufficient to show that infant baptism grew out 
of the false assumption that infants are totally depraved 
in all the faculties and parts of soul and body — children 
of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation for Adam's sin, 
unless baptized. We know that modern defenders of the 
practice are unwilling to admit this ; but Dr. Wall, as a 
historian, gives authority for what he says ; and historical 
facts, though ignored, can not be wiped out. They are 
events of the past, and must so remain, though erased from 
the pages of every book on earth. If, therefore, we have 
succeeded, or do succeed, in showing that the dogma of 
hereditary total depravity is untrue, we will have shown 
not only that man has the power to believe and obey God, 
but "also that the doctrine of abstract spiritual influences ; 
infant regeneration, and infant baptism, as dependencies 
upon it, are necessarily untrue. Then, seeing the impor- 
tance of our subject, let us continue our examination of it. 
If Adam's posterity inherited the corrupt nature described 
after the fall, then why do not children of Christians in- 
herit their parents' purified natures after their conversion ? 
Surely, if God directly controlled the matter, He would 
have had as much pleasure in the transmission of purity 



Il8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of nature to the children of the faithful, as He would have 
had in entailing corruption of nature on the children of 
the disobedient. And if He had not specially controlled 
it, but left it to the laws of nature, we can see no reason 
why purity of heart would not have been as readily trans- 
mitted to the children of the Christians as defilement of 
nature would have been to the children of the wicked. 
But the creed tells us that " this corruption of nature, du- 
ring this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated." 
Presbyterian Confession, chap, vi, sec. 5, page 41. Here, 
as usual, the creed and the Bible are in direct antagonism. 
When Peter addressed his fellow-apostles and elders, on 
one occasion, he said : " Men and brethren, ye know how 
that a good while ago God made choice among us, that 
the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the 
gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, 
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even 
as unto us ; and put no difference between us and 
them, purifying their hearts by faith." Acts xv : 7,-9. 
In writing to his brethren, he says, " Seeing you have 
purified your souls in obeying the truth." 1 Pet. i : 22. 
Now, if this corruption remains in those who are truly 
converted, how is it possible for persons to be wholly de- 
filed in all the faculties and parts of soul and body, utterly 
indisposed, disabled, opposite to all good, and wholly in- 
clined to all evil, as described by the creed, and yet their 
hearts purified by faith, and their souls by obedience, as 
described by Peter. Surely, the converts to the creed are 
not the brethren of Peter ; nor are they the blest of the 
Lord, for he says, " Blessed are the pure in heart : for they 
shall see God." Matt, v : 8. 

Jesus, in his explanation of the parable of the sower, 
(Luke viii : 15), says, "But that on the good ground are 
they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 1 1 9 

word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." If 
there was not another passage of scripture in the Bible 
bearing on the subject, this one would be quite sufficient 
to spoil the whole theory. Had Jesus been educated in 
the theological schools of our day, He would not have 
spoken of honest and good hearts receiving the Word, for 
He would have been therein taught that there are none 
such ; but, on the contrary, all Adam's race are wholly de- 
filed in all the faculties of soul and body, opposed to all 
good, and wholly inclined to all evil. It seems to us that 
all speculative theorizing about doubtful interpretations of 
Scripture, to sustain our favorite dogma, should bend be- 
fore such direct, plain, and positive statements of the Sav- 
iour as the above quoted. 

But we are told in the creed that our natures are not 
only made totally corrupt by Adam's sin, but that the 
GUILT of it was imputed to all his descendants. This 
we regard as a fatal mistake growing out of a failure to 
discriminate between guilt and consequences. It is cer- 
tainly true that we suffer in consequence of Adam's sin, but 
that we are in any sense guilty of it, or morally accounta- 
ble for it, is not exactly clear to us. To suffer the conse- 
quences of an act is one thing, but to be held guilty of it, 
by imputation or otherwise, is quite a different thing. A 
man, for illustration, may own an estate sufficient to abun- 
dantly supply the wants of his family for life, but, by 
gambling, he may have it all swept away in a single day ; 
his wife and children may be reduced to poverty and 
want by his wickedness, and thus made to keenly feel the 
consequences of his act, but surely no one would regard 
them guilty in consequence of their misfortune. So we 
suffer death as a consequence of Adam's sin, as we will 
more clearly see directly ; but this is not quite sufficient 
to show that we are guilty of or responsible for it. If we 



120 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

are guilty of or responsible for his first sin, why are we 
not accountable for all other sins committed by him ? As 
he was childless when driven from the garden, and was an 
hundred and thirty years old when Seth, his third son, of 
which we have an account, was born, and was nine hun- 
dred and thirty years old when he died, it follows that he 
lived more than eight hundred years after eating the in- 
terdicted fruit. It is next to certain, therefore, that he did 
many things wrong during this long period. Is there any 
good reason why we are guilty of his first sin, and guilty 
of no other sin committed by him ? And if we are re- 
sponsible for and guilty of Adam's sin, are we not equally 
guilty of all the sins committed by our own father? He 
is much nearer us than Adam, and we can plainly see in 
ourselves some things inherited from him. If, then, we are 
guilty of the sins of Adam, we see no escape from the 
guilt of our father's sin. And as these are but two ex- 
tremes in the long chain of parentage from us to Adam, 
we can see no reason why we may not be held guilty, ac- 
cording to the same rule, of all the sins of every parent 
between them. If so, well may we ask, " Lord, who then can 
be saved ? " When we do the best we can, we have quite 
enough in our own record to answer for ; and if we are 
thus charged with the sins of those who have lived before 
us, then the last lingering ray of hope for the salvation of 
man is forever extinguished. We are encouraged, how- 
ever, by the fact that God has contradicted the whole the- 
ory, saying : " The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son 
shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the 
father bear the iniquity of the son : the righteousness of 
the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of 
the wicked shall be upon him." Ezek. xviii : 20. It seems 
to us that the prophet intended to describe the false rea- 
soners of our day, when he said: "The Gentiles shall 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 121 

come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, 
Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things 
wherein there is no profit." Jer. xvi : 19. 

But is it possible, in the nature of things, that sin can 
be transmitted from parent to child? In order to arrive 
at a satisfactory solution of this question, it may be well 
to ascertain what sin is ; and this we can do with great 
certainty, for we have a definition of it given by inspira- 
tion. John says "sin is the transgression of the law." 
I John iii : 4. In the light of this definition, how is it 
possible that a transgression by one man may be trans- 
mitted to another, or from parent to child ? God has said, 
"Thou shalt not kill." In violation of this law, a man 
thrusts a dagger to the heart of his neighbor. This is sin. 
Now this act, being the act of a father, can not possibly 
become the act of his child ; nor can the child be made 
responsible for it. He may approve the act, and for this 
approval may receive merited punishment ; but it was the 
wicked approval that brought guilt to him, and not the act 
of the father. Without such approval, he may suffer in 
consequence of his father's act — may be made an orphan 
by it — but surely the act itself can not become his act. 
Sin is nowhere in God's word defined to be a weakness, 
or hereditament, but a transgression or act of the guilty 
himself. " God is love," and can not punish man for that 
which he has no power to prevent. 

But we have said that we die as a consequence of 
Adam's sin. This is true, and yet we are not guilty of it. 
When Adam fell fro?n the plastic hand of God, he was as 
mortal as he was after he ate of the i7iterdicted fruit : how, 
then, is death a consequence of that act ? He was placed 
in a garden or orchard, in which grew, among others, two 
trees, respectively called The tree of life, and The tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil. For his government in this 
1 1 



122 THE GOSPEL FLAN OF SALVATION. 

garden, God gave him a law, saying : " Of every tree of the 
garden thou mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the 
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for 
in the day thou eatest thereof dying thou shalt die." Gen. 
ii : 16, 17. We have adopted the marginal reading of the 
Polyglot Bible, because it is agreed, by scholars, to be an 
improvement upon the King's translation. It will be seen, 
by an examination of this law, that Adam had access to 
the tree of life before he ate of the interdicted fruit, and 
the properties of the fruit of this tree were such as to 
counteract the mortal tendencies of his nature, and keep 
him alive as long as he had access to it. But when he vio- 
lated God's law, it was only necessary that he should be 
driven from the garden, so that he might no longer have 
access to this life-giving fruit, that, under the laws of 
mortality to which his nature subjected him, he might suf- 
fer the penalty of the law which said, "dying thou shalt 
die." Hence, God said : " Behold, the man has become as 
one of us, to know good and evil : and now, lest he put 
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, 
and live forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth 
from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence 
he was taken. So he drove out the man : and he placed 
at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a 
flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way 
of the tree of life." Gen. iii : 22-24. Thus we see how 
Adam died in consequence of his sin, and that he would 
not have died had he not sinned ; hence says Paul, " By 
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." 
Rom. v: 12. Not that he possessed physical immortality 
before he sinned, for he did not, but he had a remedy for 
his mortality of which he was deprived after he sinned. 
We are sometimes asked whether or not the lower animals 
die as a consequence of Adam's sin ? We answer they do 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY, 1 23 

not, but they die as a result of the common laws of mor- 
tality to which the whole animal creation are subject. 
They have been subject to these laws from the time the) 
were created, not having had access to the fruit of the 
tree of life, as Adam did before he sinned. From this 
stand-point it is easy to see how Adam's posterity die as a 
consequence of his sin. His children inherit from him 
just such an organization as he had both before and after 
he sinned, and as they are born out of the garden of Eden, 
and away from the tree of life, they can not have its fruit 
to counteract the mortal tendencies of their nature, and 
hence, like him, dying they die. Shall we hence conclude 
that Adam's offspring are guilty of his sin ? As well may 
we conclude that the African child that falls a victim to 
cannibalism, sinned by being born in Africa. It was its 
misfortune to be born in a locality where men eat each 
other : so it is our misfortune to be born out of the gar- 
den of Eden, where, for a time, we can not get fruit from 
the tree of life ; but if we do our Father's commandments, 
there is coming a period when we will have a right to the 
tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. 
There is much speculation in the world with reference to 
the kind of death Adam and his posterity died as a con- 
sequence of his sin. Mr. Ewing, in his Lectures, (page 63,) 
tells us that, " By reason of our union with our federal 
head and representative, we sinned in him, and fell with 
him, and death is the consequence — death spiritual, tem- 
poral, and eternal." If the death which Adam and the 
human race died was not only spiritual and temporal, but 
eternal, then we see no remedy that can reach such a case. 
Eternal must mean witJioiit end — of endless duration. 
Then, if this death be eternal, there can be no more life, 
and hence all our efforts to save those who are eternally 
dead can do no good, and the whole family of man is lost — 



124 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

hopelessly lost. If a single son of Adam be saved, it 
follows that he was not eternally lost ; for — it matters not in 
what sense he be dead — if ever made alive, that is an end to 
his death, and, consequently, his death could not have been 
eternal. 

But Mr. Ewing further tells us (page 62) : " The whole 
soul of man is entirely depraved, corrupt, and alienated 
from God — a child of wrath, an heir of hell, going astray 
from the womb, conceived in sin, an enemy to God, having 
a heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked ; 
the understanding darkened, the affections earthly, and the 
whole man sensual and devilish." Truly, this is an ap- 
palling picture of our nature at birth, entailed upon us for 
no other reason than that we descended from Adam, with 
whom, by a single act of his, we fell into this deplorable 
condition six thousand years before we were born. And 
when we add to this thought the language of the Pres- 
byterian Confession — that " this corruption of nature, during 
this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated" — we 
have a most ridiculous description of Christian character 
manufactured by this theory. Behold a Christian with a 
heart not only entirely depraved, sensual and devilish, but 
hating God, and an heir of hell ! ! ! We do not suppose 
the authors of these books believed this monstrous 
absurdity themselves, or intended to teach it to others, 
but they were involved in it by the blinding influences of a 
false theory. Be this as it may, however, we can not 
admit that this is a correct picture of that "holiness 
without which no man shall see the Lord." 

The mind of man is composed of numerous faculties, 
which may be divided into two grand divisions, called, 
respectively, Animal and Intellectual. By " animal faculties," 
we mean such as are possessed by man and beast ; or we 
might simply say by animals, for man is only an intel- 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 125 

lectual animal. As examples of this class of faculties we 
may mention Alimentiveness, Combativeness, Destructive- 
ness, Amativeness, Philoprogenitiveness, etc., etc. In man 
they are usually called prope7isities, but in lower animals 
they are called instincts. Paul calls them " the carnal 
mind," and tells us "it is not subject to the law of God, 
neither indeed can be." Rom. viii: 7. It would do but 
little good to read the Ten Commandments to a horse, as 
he would not be subject to them — neither, indeed, could he 
be ; and it would do about as little good to read them to the 
purely carnal mind of man (if it were possible to do so), 
composed of similar constituents, which knows no law but 
animal gratification. But God has given to man an intel- 
lectuality capable of appreciating law, and has given him a 
law adapted to his organization, by which his carnal pro- 
pensities are to be exercised, and by which the whole man 
is to be governed. And while the whole man is governed 
by laws received from God, and applied by the intellectual 
man, all is harmony and order, and without sin ; but when 
these laws are superseded by animal propensities, such as 
appetite, passion, and lust, then come confusion, violence, 
and crime. And thus originated sin in the garden of Eden. 
God gave Adam a law for the government of his appetite, 
and while he obeyed it he had life and peace ; but when law 
was supplanted by appetite, sin came, and death by sin. 
From the description of man's nature found in the creeds, 
it would seem that the authors regard these animal pro- 
pensities as filling the entire measure of the human mind. 
But the duality of mind is well established by experience, 
observation, metaphysics, reason, and the Bible. The 
carnal mind we have seen already : the perceptive and re- 
flective faculties, of which there are many, and the moral 
sentiments, such as Benevolence, Veneration, Conscien- 
tiousness, Firmness, Hope, etc., make up the intellectual 



126 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

and moral nature of man, to which God's law is addressed, 
and Paul tells us, " they that are after the flesh do mind 
the things of the flesh ; but they that are after the Spirit, 
the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is 
death ; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." 
Rom. viii : 5, 6. The antagonism of these two depart- 
ments of man's nature is well shown in Paul's description 
of himself. "I find then," says he, "a law, that, when I 
would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in 
the law of God after the inward man. But I see another 
law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, 
and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is 
in my members." Rom. vii: 21-23. Had this dual nature 
been dispensed with in the creation of man, he must have 
been all animal, and therefore nothing more than a brute ; 
or he must have been all intellectual and moral, without 
any counter-tendencies in his nature, and therefore would 
have been a mere machine, acting as compelled to act, 
under one set of principles, and hence there would have 
been neither merit nor demerit in any thing he did ; nor 
could he have had the slightest freedom of will, and, 
therefore, could not have been in the slightest degree ac- 
countable to his Creator, Who, in that event, woull have 
been operating him as a mechanic does his machine. 

But if we can arrive at the meaning of the language, 
"dying thou shalt die," as connected with the law given 
to and violated by Adam, then we think we may arrive 
at a knowledge of the kind of death he died. This we 
certainly can do with great clearness, as we have an 
exegesis of the language by God Himself. After Adam 
violated the law, God adjudicated his case, and pro- 
nounced the sentence upon him. Both as the Giver of 
the law and as God, He certainly knew what He meant 
by the language of the law, and He certainly pronounced 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 127 

the sentence in accordance therewith. What, then, was 
the sentence? "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 
return." Gen. iii: 19. Surely, this must mean literal, 
physical death ; nothing more, nothing less. Moses wrote 
the history of this affair about two thousand five hun- 
dred years after it occurred, when the word die, in all its 
forms, was of no doubtful import, but had a well settled 
meaning in the current usage of that day. A few examples 
may not be out of place here. In the fifth chapter of 
Genesis we have the word employed by the same writer 
no less than eight times, as follows: "And all the days 
that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years : and 
he died." Ver. 5. "And all the days of Seth were 
nine hundred and twelve years: and he died!' Ver. 8. 
"And all the days of Enoswere nine hundred and five 
years: and he died!' Ver. 11. "And all the days of Cainan 
were nine hundred and ten years : and he died!' Ver. 14. 
"And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety 
and five years: and he died!' Ver. 17. "And all the days 
of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years : and he 
died!' Ver. 20. "And all the days of Methuselah were 
nine hundred sixty and nine years : and he died!' Ver. 2y. 
"And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy 
and seven years: and he died." Ver. 31. These cases 
clearly show what Moses understood by the word die, and 
as he is the same writer that recorded the law violated by 
Adam, he must have meant the same by " die? in the law, 
that he meant in the other cases referred to. Again: 
The word die must certainly mean just the opposite of the 
word live. This word in its various forms occurs in the 
same chapter to indicate physical life. PJad God afflicted 
Adam with greater punishment than the terms employed in- 
dicated to him, then would He not have deceived him ? And 
if He determined upon other and greater punishment for 



128 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

him, after he committed the act, than that threatened in 
the law violated, then we insist that it was ex post facto in its 
character, and therefore unjust. The circumstances under 
which Adam violated God's law would have rather invoked 
a commutation of punishment than an increase of it. He 
did not know good and evil until he acquired a knowledge 
of it by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good 
and evil. This is evident from the language of God after 
he ate of it: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to 
know good and evil." Gen. iii : 22. He could only ap- 
preciate the law as a positive prohibition, but his moral 
obligation to obey God, as his Creator, he could not ap- 
preciate. He did not so much as know that he was naked, 
for God said : " Who told thee that thou wast naked ? Hast 
thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that 
thou shouldest not eat?" Ibid, 11. Certainly, then, if 
ignorance be a mitigating circumstance, Adam was entitled 
to the full benefit of it. 

From our stand-point such a thought as spiritual cor- 
ruption by inheritance is utterly impossible. Paul says, 
"We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and 
we gave them - reverence: shall we not much rather be in 
subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" Heb. 
xii : 9. Does not this passage plainly prove that the 
fathers of our flesh are not the fathers of our spirits ? To 
our mind it shows that while our bodies are inherited from 
our parents, the Spirit is not so inherited, but comes 
directly from God. Hence the style: "Fathers of our 
flesh" " The Father of spirits" Our bodies we inherit 
from our parents, and, consequently, physical impurities may 
be transmitted from parent to child, but we suppose all 
will agree that the mind, the spiritual or inner man, is the 
seat of moral depravity. If, then, we do not get our spirits 
by inheritance, it is impossible that we should inherit 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. I 20, 

spiritual depravity from Adam. May we further examine 
the Scriptures on this subject? "The burden of the 
word of the Lord for Israel, saith the Lord, which 
stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation 
of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him." 
Zech. xii : I. If God forms the spirit within man, it seems 
improbable that he gets it by inheritance. Again : Sol- 
omon says, " Then shall the dust return to the earth as 
it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it." 
Eccl. xii : 7. By this we learn not only that the spirit re- 
turns to God at death, but that God originally gave it. 
The words " rettims to God" clearly imply that it had been 
there before. We can not say we returned to a place to 
which we had never been. In returning, it did not go in 
or with the body, as the body returned to the ground as 
dust. As, therefore, the spirit returns independent of the 
body, is it not likely that God gave it to man, not by or 
through the body, but for the body ? The words " God 
who gave it" have somewhat the same ring, too; never- 
theless, they alone would not be quite conclusive, for He 
gives us food, raiment, and many other things through 
means prepared to produce them. The question for us, 
then, is, Does He give the spirit through means or without 
means — does He give it directly or indirectly — does He 
give it as we have seen that He takes it — or does He give 
it by procreation, organization, or some other means ? Let 
us see. When Jesus restored the ruler's dead daughter to 
life, Luke says "her spirit came again, and she arose 
straightway." Luke viii : 55. The spirit of the damsel 
came again. From whence did it come ? Solomon says the 
spirit returns to God, who gave it. Then it is clear that her 
spirit went to God when she died, and came directly from 
Him when she was made alive. The words " came again" 
imply that it had done the same thing before ; and as we 



130 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

have no account of her being miraculously made alive be- 
fore, it follows that it was at the beginning of her existence 
that her spirit came directly from God the previous time. 

But we are told that the spiritual man did not come 
directly from God, but is the creature of the organization. 
We have not room for a thorough examination of this ob- 
jection here, but we must notice it briefly — not by way of 
respect for materialistic infidelity, of which it is the corner- 
stone, but in respect to our own argument, against which 
it may be presented. First, then, if the spirit came not 
from God, how are the scriptures above quoted and the 
reasonings therefrom to be met ? And how can a material 
organization create an immaterial soul capable of existence 
separate from the organization after the latter has ceased 
to be ? Or if the soul, created by materiality, is itself ma- 
terial, why is it not subject to chemical analysis ? The 
material organization is not only subject to chemical an- 
alysis, but has been analyzed repeatedly. The ultimate 
elements of it have been found, and if the soul is also 
material, why has it not been subjected to the same proc- 
ess ? Surely, the advocates of materialism have the ability 
to do it if it were possible — and the defense of their theory 
would invoke the disposition to do it — if they, then, have 
not done it, it is clear that, because of the soul's immate- 
riality, they can not do it. That the soul is capable of ex- 
istence after the separation of soul and body, is clear from 
what we have already quoted from Solomon — that the body 
returns to the ground and the spirit returns to God, who 
gave it ; not only so, but it is also clear from numerous 
other passages. Paul says : " Therefore we are always con- 
fident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we 
are absent from the Lord. . . . We are confident, and will- 
ing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present 
with the Lord." 2 Cor. v : 6,8. John " saw under the altar 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. I 3 I 

the souls of them that were slain for the word of God." 
Rev. vi : 9. We might further quote Luke xvi : 24, 27, 
concerning the rich man and Lazarus, and many other 
scriptures on this subject ; but enough has been quoted to 
satisfy those who read and believe the Bible, and others 
will not likely read what we write about it. The body may 
be likened to a machine controlled by the mind or spiritual 
man. No machinery has ever been known capable of gener- 
ating its own motive power ; hence the " Perpetual Motion" 
has not been invented. If the human organism creates the 
soul, its own motive power, then it is an exception to all 
known law on the subject. If, then, our argument holds 
good, and the spirit came, not by inheritance, but directly 
from God, it follows that when it is given, it is not only 
good, but very good, and the whole theory of hereditary 
depravity is most certainly false. The child comes into 
the world with its infantile mind composed of numerous 
faculties susceptible of being cultivated and developed by 
impressions made upon it through the senses, and when 
all its faculties are properly balanced, educated, and gov- 
erned, they are calculated to make the man useful and 
happy, but if neglected may make him vicious and miser- 
able — and his inclinations to virtue or vice depend much 
upon the circumstances and influences surrounding him ; 
hence inclinations to sin are as different in different per- 
sons as the circumstances have been different by which 
they have been influenced from infancy to manhood. We 
most firmly believe that many men who were raised under 
improper influences and became desperately wicked — per- 
haps terminated their lives upon a scaffold — if they had 
been raised under wholesome influences, would have been 
useful members of society and finally saved in heaven, 
and vice versa. Thus we see the importance of observ- 
ing Solomon's admonition : " Train up a child in the way 



132 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from 
it ;" with which Paul agrees, saying, " Bring up your chil- 
dren in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 

But there are differences of mental power manifested by 
different persons, growing out of a difference in the phys- 
ical machinery inherited from our parents. This we not 
only admit, but firmly believe ; but these do not affect our 
position in the least. An engine may run a vast amount 
of well made and properly applied machinery, and thus ex- 
hibit great power, but were we to apply the same engine to 
heavy, cumbersome, unwieldy, unbalanced machinery, it 
could do but little, though the same man operated it. So 
a man who has inherited a fine organization, large and well 
balanced brain, of fine material, will exhibit much more 
mental power than one who has inherited an imperfect or- 
ganization of coarse material. But inherited weakness, 
whether physical or mental, is not sin — no guilt can attach 
to it — and therefore the differences in mental power spoken 
of can not prove the doctrine of total depravity ; on the 
contrary, if they prove any thing concerning it, they con- 
tradict it, for these differences can not be the result of 
total depravity, because all who are totally depraved are, in 
this respect, exactly alike. There is no comparative degree 
in total depravity. 

But we must briefly notice some of the proofs relied on 
to sustain the doctrine. First, we are told that the in- 
fant gets angry as soon as born, and thus gives evidence of 
total depravity. If this be proof conclusive, then God is to- 
tally depraved, too, for He said to Moses, when the people 
worshiped the calf made by Aaron, " Let me alone, that 
my wrath may wax hot against them." Ex. xxxii: 10. 
And again : " God is angry with the wicked every day." 
Ps. vii : 11. Does not the infant smile as well as cry? 
And does it not very soon divide its toys and food with its 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 1 33 

associate, thus exhibiting feelings of kindness as well as 
anger? 

But we are referred to some scriptures which we must 
notice : "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not 
one ; there is none that understandeth ; there is none that 
seeketh after God ; they are all gone out of the way ; they 
are together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth 
good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre ; with 
their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of asps is 
under their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing and bit- 
terness ; their feet are swift to shed blood ; destruction 
and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have 
they not known. There is no fear of God before their 
eyes." Rom. iii : 10-18. Now, we only need to carefully 
read this quotation in order to see that it can not apply to 
any inherited corruption of nature existing at birth, but to 
such as had corrupted themselves by wicked works. In- 
fants are not expected to be righteous, for righteousness 
consists in doing right. Nor are they expected to under- 
stand — to seek God — to have gone out of the way, or in the 
way — to have done good or evil. Their tongues have not 
used deceit, nor are their mouths full of cursing and bitter- 
ness, for they can not talk at all. Their feet are not swift 
to shed blood, for they can not hurt any one. And it will 
be borne in mind that the passage is relied upon to prove 
an inherited corruption of nature that comes into the 
world with us by ordinary generation. Paul makes this 
quotation from David — Ps. xiv — where he tells how they 
became corrupt : " They have done abominable works." 
Hence their corruption came not by Adam's sin, but by 
their own wickedness. 

Next we examine the language of David — Ps. li : 5 : " Be- 
hold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother 
conceive me." Whatever may be the meaning of this pas- 



134 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

sage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. " In 
sin did my mother conceive me ;" that is, she acted wickedly 
when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, " In drunk- 
enness my husband beat me," or the child that "in anger 
my father whipped me," surely no one would attribute 
drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child ; neither 
can they impute the sin of the mother to the child. We 
come now to notice the language of the prophet with re- 
gard to "Judah and Jerusalem" — Isa. i: 5, 6: "Why 
should ye be stricken any more ? ye will revolt more and 
more : the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 
From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no 
soundness in it ; but wounds and bruises and putrefying 
sores." This was not spoken with regard to any inherited 
defilement attaching to any one, but with regard to the 
Jews as a nation. As a nation they had become corrupt — 
not by inheritance, but by actual transgressions of their 
own. And God had scourged them, and afflicted them for 
their own wickedness (not Adam's sin), until, as a nation, 
they were comparable to a man. full of wounds and bruises 
and putrefying sores, and still they would not reform ; 
hence, by His prophet, He asks, " Why should ye be 
stricken any more ? ye will revolt more and more ?" — as 
much as to say : " I have sent fiery serpents to bite you, 
by which thousands have died ; I have allowed you to go 
to war with the nations around you until multiplied thou- 
sands have been slain in battle ; and in various ways I 
have chastened you as a father chasteneth his children ; but 
all to no purpose. Why should I afflict you further? it 
will only make you worse and worse." " Your country is 
desolate ; your cities are burned with fire ; your land 
strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate as 
overthrown by strangers " — thus clearly speaking of na- 
tional calamities that had befallen them as a nation. Not 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. I 35 

a word of allusion to Adam's sin or its consequences in 
the whole connection. 

We are next referred to the language of David — Ps. lviii : 
1-8 : " Do ye indeed speak righteousnesss, O congrega- 
tion ? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men ? Yea, in 
heart ye work wickedness ; ye weigh the violence of your 
hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the 
womb : they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking 
lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent ; they 
are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear : which will 
not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so 
wisely." Here, again, we need only read the passage care- 
fully to see that it can not apply to infants at birth. In 
heart these work wickedness : children at birth do not 
work wickedness. 

The wicked are estranged from the womb : the theory 
says all are wicked and estranged. They go astray as soon 
as they are born — speaking lies : the theory says they are 
born astray. These persons spake lies : infants can not 
speak at all. Shall we hear David's prayer for them ? 
" Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth." Do infants 
have teeth in their mouth at birth ? He continues : " Break 
out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord. Let them 
melt away as waters which run continually : when he 
bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in 
pieces." Surely, this was a singular prayer coming from 
David for the punishment and destruction of infants ! ! ! 
This was simply strong language used to describe the 
wickedness of the congregation and judges mentioned in 
the first verse. 

We are next referred to the language of Paul to the 
Ephesians — chap, ii : 1-3 : "And you hath he quickened 
who were dead in trespasses and sins." This does not fit 
the theory, for then it should read "dead in a trespass or 



I36 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

sin? But how came their death ? " Wherein in time past 
ye walked according- to the course of this world, according 
to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now 
worketh in the children of disobedience : among whom 
also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts 
of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the 
mind ; and were by nature the children of wrath even as 
others." This shows us clearly how their nature became 
corrupt, which was by wicked works, or, as Paul expresses 
it, fulfilling the desires of the flesh. Not a word about 
Adam's sin : they were dead in their own sins. 

But we are referred to Rom. v : 12 : "Wherefore, as by 
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and. 
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." 
This passage does have reference to Adam's sin and its 
consequences, but it falls very far short of proving that 
all men, or even Adam, became totally depraved. David 
sinned very grievously ; yet his heart zvas perfect with the 
Lord his God (1 Ks. xv: 3), insomuch that he was a man 
after God's own heart. (1 Sam. xiii : 14; Acts xiii : 22.) 
If his sin left his heart perfect with God, how did a single 
sin of Adam totally deprave him and all his posterity. If 
a man were to commit a crime worthy of death, and were 
to have the sentence of death passed upon him, still all 
this could not prove him totally depraved, opposed to all 
good, and wholly inclined to all evil ; he may have some 
good emotions yet. Here we might safely dismiss the 
passage, having shown that it does not prove that for which 
it is introduced ; but can we learn the meaning of it ? The 
fact that almost every exponent of it has a theory of his 
own, derived from it, is quite enough to prove the import 
of it to be doubtful. A dottbtful interpretation of an ob- 
scure passage must not come in contact with a plain passage 
about the meaning of which there can be no mistake. 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 1 37 

When the phrase "all have sinned" is interpreted to mean 
that the whole race of man sinned in Adam, it seems to us 
a plain contradiction of God's law, which says : " The soul 
that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the in- 
iquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the in- 
iquity of the son: the righeousness of the righteous shall 
be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be 
upon him." The theory says the children of Adam do 
bear his iniquity, and his wickedness is not only on him, 
but also on them. It is also antagonistic to John's defi- 
nition of sin — that "sin is the transgression of the law;" 
and also with the fact seen already — that a transgression 
or act (for sin is an act) of one man can not be transmitted 
to or become the act of another. We regard the passage 
as clearly metonymical. The consequences of Adam's sin 
being suffered by all, the sin is said to have been commit- 
ted by all * the consequences being put for the act. The 
apostle alludes to the sin of Adam, as a consequence of 
which all suffer death in accordance with the laws of their 
mortal nature inherited from Adam, they not having 
fruit from the tree of life with which to counteract 
mortality as Adam had before he sinned ; and thus 
" death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them 
that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trans- 
gression." Ver. 14. 

It is somewhat strange to us that those who profess 
to disbelieve Universalism can believe that the death here 
spoken of is spiritual death. If spiritual death passed 
upon all men because they all sinned in Adam, then Uni- 
versalism must be true ; for the apostle goes on to say : 
" If through the offense of one many be dead, much more 
the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one 
man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." The grace 
of God and the gift by grace has abounded to just as 
12 



I38 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

many through Christ, the last Adam, as are dead by the 
offense of the first Adam; "therefore, as by the offense 
of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, 
even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came 
upon all men unto justification of life." Ver. 18. The 
same all who suffer by the offense of one, are made alive 
by the righteousness of another. This is not only the 
teaching of Paul here, but he communicates the same 
thought to his brethren at Corinth. The fifteenth chap- 
ter of his first letter to them is devoted to the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, and in the 22d verse he has the fol- 
lowing very significant language: "For as in Adam 
all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." As in 
Adam all die — not died back yonder in the garden, but die 
now in Adam. And who dies in Adam ? All men, most 
certainly. Even so in Christ shall the same all be made 
alive : the infant and the aged, the wicked and* the just, 
all die, and their "dust returns to the earth as it was;" 
but when the trump of God shall sound, they will be raised 
from the dead through Christ — " but every man in his own 
order : Christ the firstfruits ; afterward they that are 
Christ's at his coming." Ver. 23. 

But we are sometimes told that if man is not guilty of 
Adam's sin, then Christ's mission and death were useless. 
Surely, such persons have very narrow views of the sub- 
ject. How shall we escape the punishment due us on ac- 
count of our own sins ? And how shall we be raised from 
the dead only through Christ ? It is nowhere said in the 
word of the Lord that Christ died to save man from 
Adam's sin ; but we have abundant testimony proving that 
He came to save man from his own sins. Joseph was told 
by the Lord to call the infant Saviour Jesus, because He 
should save His people from their sins, not Adam's sin. 
Peter commanded his hearers, when preaching from Solo- 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 139 

mon's porch : " Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that 
your sins may be blotted out." It was their sins which 
were to be blotted out, and not Adam's sin. God's prom- 
ise, in the new covenant, to His people was: "And their 
sins and iniquities will I remember no more." The new 
covenant made no provision for Adam's sin; therefore, if 
God ever remembered it against His people under this 
covenant, He is remembering it yet. Paul said to the 
Colossians, " You being dead in yoar sins and the uncircum- 
cision of your flesk." They were not dead in Adams sin, 
nor in the uncircumcision of his flesh. Under the Jewish 
law, God made provisions for pardon of sins committed 
against it, and He mentions many sins for which offerings 
were to be made in a prescribed form ; but He provided no 
remedy for Adam's sin, nor did He ever speak of it as 
chargeable to the Jews. Surely, if God has Adam's sin in 
remembrance against Adam's posterity, He would have 
mentioned it somewhere, or in some dispensation made pro- 
vision for the pardon of it. Christ came, then, "who his 
own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree ;" but 
He came not only that we might have pardon of our sins, 
but, as we have already seen, that we may have a resurrec- 
tion of the dead ; hence, the language of Paul : " If Christ 
be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins. 
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are per- 
ished." Surely, these are objects sufficiently important to 
invoke the mission and sufferings of the Christ the Son of 
God — salvation from sin, a resurrection from the grave, and 
eternal life. 

We come now to notice the practical bearing of the 
doctrine of total depravity, as an effect of Adam's sin, 
upon the reception of the gospel as the power of God 
unto salvation. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith 
tells us that "Man, by his fall into sin, hath wholly lost 



I4O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying sal- 
vatioD is not able, by his own strength, to con- 
vert himself or to prepare himself thereunto." Chap, ix, 
sec. 3. Now, if the alien has lost all ability of will to any 
spiritual good, it follows that he can not even will or desire 
his own salvation. What can he do, then ? Just nothing 
at all ! he is as passive as a block of marble in the hands 
of the sculptor. But " when God converts a sinner, and 
translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from 
his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone en- 
ables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually 
good." Ibid, sec. 4. Thus we see that this theory brings 
man into the world wholly defiled in all Ae faculties of 
soul and body, opposed to all good, and wholly inclined to 
all evil, not even able to will any spiritual good accom- 
panying salvation, until God converts and translates him 
into the state of grace, so as to free him from his natural 
bondage, and enable him freely to will and to do that 
which is spiritually good. Then, if God never converts 
him and he is finally lost, who is to blame for it ? Surely, 
not man, for he could not even will or desire his own sal- 
vation, or prepare himself thereunto. Why did Christ 
command that the Gospel be preached among all nations, 
and to every creature, promising salvation to those who 
would believe and obey it, when He must have known, if 
this theory be true, that they could neither believe nor obey 
it? — nay, they could not even so much as will or desire their 
salvation, or any thing good connected therewith, to say 
nothing of doing any thing to secure it. And why did He 
threaten them with damnation if they did not believe it, 
when, according to the theory, they have no more power 
to believe it than they have to make a world ? 

We insist that the doctrine is too monstrously absurd to 
be entertained by any one for a moment — antagonistic to 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. I4I 

the whole tenor of God's word and the spirit of the Chris- 
tian religion — alike dishonoring to God and destructive to 
man. And when we remember that the world has been 
taught this doctrine for centuries by the large majority of 
those who have spoken and written concerning it, we are 
made to wonder, not that infidelity is abroad in the land, 
but that there are not an hundred infidels where there is 
one. God never, at any time, commanded man to do that 
which he was unable to do ; and the very fact that He 
commands man to believe and obey Him, is evidence, high 
as heaven, that he has the ability to do the things required 
of him. All things necessary for man's salvation and hap- 
piness which he is unable to do for himself, God has done 
or will do for him ; but what he is able to do for himself, 
God requires of him, and will not do for him. These fun- 
damental truths, however, we must leave the reader to am- 
plify for himself: we can not pursue this branch of our 
subject further at present ; though we have not exhausted 
it, we fear we may exhaust his patience ere we get before 
him some remaining thoughts deemed important to our 
investigation. 

If God charged Adam's posterity with the guilt of his 
sin, we wish to know when it was or will be, forgiven. 
Was it forgiven when Jesus made the atonement ? If so, 
the whole theory of man's present guilt of that sin is de- 
stroyed, for he can not be guilty of a sin already pardoned. 
Is it pardoned when man is pardoned for his own sins ? 
No, for the creed tells us that it remains through life in 
those who are regenerated ; and it also tells us that it is 
appointed unto all men once to die, for that all have 
sinned. Surely, he would not yet have to die for a sin that 
had been pardoned. Is it forgiven at death ? Where is 
the proof of it? And what are the conditions, if any, 
upon which it is to be done ? Or, if unconditionally par- 



142 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

cloned, what are the means to accomplish it ? Is it for- 
given in the intermediate state between death and the 
judgment ? If so, why can not all other sins be pardoned 
in that state ? And if they can, why the necessity of 
having them pardoned in this life ? Is it pardoned at the 
final judgment ? If so, then we will be judged according 
to the deeds done in Adams body, and not every one ac- 
cording to the deeds done in his own body. Is it not 
pardoned at all? Then, will the Christian be damned for 
the guilt of Adam sin after having been pardoned for his 
own sins'? If so, the sentence will not be, "Depart 
from me, ye workers of iniquity," but, " Depart from me, 
all ye that have washed your robes, and made them white 
in the blood of the Lamb." Though your sins have all 
been canceled from the book of God's remembrance, in 
accordance with the provisions of the new covenant, and 
though your righteousness is as robes of linen clean and 
white, there is one sin which, though not committed by 
you, is imputed to or charged against you, for which you 
must go with the devil, that deceived you in Adam, into 
the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the 
false prophet are, where you shall be tormented day and 
night forever and ever. Or, if he does not go to hell on 
account of it, will he go to heaven with it still charged 
against him — with a nature totally depraved, wholly op- 
posed to all good, and inclined to all evil ? We most con- 
fidently deny that any one of Adam's posterity ever has 
been or will be sent to hell for Adam's sin. As we have 
stated more than once, all die as a consequence of it, and 
through Christ will be raised from the dead. Those who 
are intelligent, and therefore responsible, and who have 
heartily accepted and complied with the terms of par- 
don for their own sins, as offered them in the Gospel 
through Christ, will be raised to the enjoyment of life 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. 1 43 

eternal. Here they will gain even more in Christ than 
they lost in Adam. As saith the poet : 

" In him the tribes of Adam boast 
More blessings than their father lost." 

They exchange not only temporal for eternal life, but they 
exchange mortal for immortal bodies, and for the first time 
will they have put on immortality. Having done the com- 
mandments, they will have a right to the tree of life, and 
will enter through the gates into the city. In these im- 
mortal and spiritual bodies they will not again be subject 
to temptation and sin. The devil, who seduced Adam, will 
not be there ; but they will have the society of God their 
Father, Jesus their elder brother, and, as saints of the Most 
High, they will join the angelic host in praising God and 
the Lamb forever and ever. 

" There pain and sickness never come, 

And grief no place obtains ; 
Health triumphs in immortal bloom, 

And endless pleasure reigns ! 
No cloud these blissful regions know, 

For ever bright and fair ! 
For sin, the source of every woe, 

Can never enter there. 
There no alternate night is known, 

Nor sun's faint sickly ray ; 
But glory from the sacred throne 

Spreads everlasting day." 

But what of the wicked ? " As in Adam all die, even 
so in Christ shall all be made alive." The wicked die as a 
consequence of Adam's sin, without their volition or 
agency ; so, without their volition or agency, they will be 
raised from death through the merits of the resurrection 
of Jesus- the Christ ; but not to life eternal: " These shall 
go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into 



144 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

life eternal." They will be judged, every man according 
to his works \ not Adam's works. They will be judged, 
not for his sin, because they are not, never have been, nor 
can they ever be, guilty of it, but for their own sins of 
which they are guilty. And having refused the terms of 
pardon offered them in the gospel, by which they might 
have been pardoned, they will be condemned: "The fear- 
ful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, 
and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all 
liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with 
fire and brimstone." And how long will this awful inherit- 
ance be theirs ? " They shall be tormented day and night 
forever and ever." O ! friendly sinner, is this to be thy 
final doom ? 

" What could your Redeemer do 
More than he has done for you ? 
To procure your peace with God, 
Could he more than shed his blood ? 
After all this flow of love, 
All his drawings from above, 
Why will you your Lord deny ? 
Why will you resolve to die? " 

But there is yet another class. Infants, idiots, and other 
irresponsible persons, die as a consequence of Adam's 
transgression, and will be raised from the dead by the 
same power and through the same means employed in the 
resurrection of others. We have seen that sin is the vio- 
lation of law ; and as they have never been subject to any 
law requiring any obedience of them, it follows that they 
have violated no law, and are hence without sins of their 
own. And as Adam's sin was not committed by, and 
therefore never charged to them, there is no sin for which 
they need forgiveness, and, therefore, for which they may 
be condemned to endless punishment. Jesus said, " Of 



HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY. I45 

such is the kingdom of God," and required others to be 
converted and become as they are, in order to enter it ; 
therefore if their purity of heart and innocency of char- 
acter were such as to constitute the standard of purity for 
those who would enter the kingdom of God on earth, we 
think they will scarcely be refused admittance into heaven 
by the same adorable Son of God, who pronounced bless- 
ings on them here. In coming from the dead, however, 
they will exchange their natural, mortal bodies for spiritual, 
immortal bodies, and will be thus prepared to enter 

" Where the saints of all ages in harmony meet, 
Their Saviour and brethren transported to greet; 
While the anthems of rapture unceasingly roll, 
And the'smile of the Lord is the feast of the soul." 

13 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 

IT will be admitted by all that God has an organized 
government on the earth. This government is vari- 
ously called in the New Testament " the kingdom of 
God," " the kingdom of heaven," " the kingdom of God's 
dear Son," " church of God," " the body of Christ," etc. 
We do not mean to say that the phrases " kingdom of 
God" and*" the kingdom of heaven" always mean the same 
thing — namely, the church in all its parts; on the con- 
trary, they frequently occur, especially in the parables of 
the Saviour, when only a particular feature or constituent 
part of the kingdom is indicated. A few examples illus- 
trative of this position may be examined with profit. Jesus 
said : 

" It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a 
needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of 
God." Matt, xix : 24. 

" Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit 
down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of 
heaven : but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out 
into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing 
of teeth." Matt, viii : 11, 12. 

These passages, with others which we might give, have 

manifest reference to the kingdom of ultimate glory. On 

another occasion, Jesus said : " The kingdom of God com- 

eth not with observation : neither shall they say, Lo here ! 

(146) 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 147 

or, Lo there ! for, behold, the kingdom of God is among 
you." Luke xvii : 20, 21. This, with other passages which 
we might give, had reference to Jesus as King, who had 
come not with pride, ostentation, and show, but was then 
among them. 

In the parable of the sower and the seed, a record of 
which we have in Matt, xiii, the gospel, as the law of 
induction into and government for those in the kingdom, 
is the feature represented. The parable of the tares and 
the parable of the fishers net, found in the same chapter, 
have reference to the character of those in the kingdom, 
some of whom were good and others bad. 

The parable of the mustard-seed and the parable of the 
leaven hid in three measures of meal, refer to the groivth or 
extension of the kingdom. 

With one example from Paul, we close these illustrations. 
He says : " The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, 
but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 
Rom. xiv : 17. Here the words "kingdom of God" refer 
to the characteristics of those in the kingdom. Other ex- 
amples might be given, but these are quite sufficient to 
show that, while the phrases " kingdom of God" and "king- 
dom of heaven" are sometimes synonymous with church, 
they must not always be so understood. 

As respects law, the church is truly a kingdom — an abso- 
lute monarchy. All its laws emanate from the King, and 
its subjects have no part in making them. There is no 
representative democracy connected with it. No council, 
convention, or legislative assembly has power or authority 
to abolish, alter, or amend them. It is a kingdom, not a 
republic. As respects organization, it is called a body, of 
which Christ is the head, all its subjects are members, and 
in which dwells the Spirit, by which it is vitalized or kept 
alive, and without which it would become a dead body. 



I48 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

As respects relationship to the world, it is fitly called the 
church—" ecclesia," or called out of the world, and is, there- 
fore, not of the world. It was set tip, established, organized, 
begun on earth, in the city of Jerusalem, on the day of Pen- 
tecost, by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, under 
the immediate agency of the apostles, guided by the direct 
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A brief examination of the 
teaching of the Scriptures on this subject is important to 
the development of " the gospel as the power of God unto 
salvation," and will repay the attentive reader. 

That we may properly appreciate the importance of ar- 
riving at truth on this subject, it may not be amiss to state 
that there are several theories differing from each other 
with regard to the time when this kingdom was set up, 
each one of which has its own doctrines growing out of its 
own theory. And if we are correct in the proposition 
stated as to time and place, it follows that all theories set- 
ting up the kingdom, organizing the body, or beginning 
the proclamation of the gospel, and laying, first, the foun- 
dation of the church at any other time or place, are not 
only wrong, but all doctrines growing out of such theories 
are false. And if we succeed in uprooting the trunk, all 
the branches drawing support from the parent trunk fall 
with it. To be more specific : One theory begins the 
church in an eternal covenant, as its advocates call it, which 
is supposed to have been entered into between God and 
His Son before the foundation of the world was laid. It is 
assumed that in this covenant the salvation of the elect was 
u?iconditio7ially secured, and the balance of the human race 
consigned to eternal misery. If God and His Son were 
the contracting parties to the covenant, and the final des- 
tiny of man the consideration about which the covenant 
was made, is it not passingly strange that the devil should 
be the largest beneficiary ? He was not represented in 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. I49 

the covenant at all, unless God represented him, or acted 
as his proxy. We are told that few go in at the strait 
gate, while many go the broad road and enter in at the 
wide gate that leadeth to destruction. If this be the result 
of such a covenant, why was God so liberal to the devil 
and so illiberal to His Son ? But we do not propose to 
discuss these theories here : we call the attention of the 
reader to them, at the threshold of our investigation, for 
the purpose of awakening attention to the importance of 
arriving at the truth in the premises. Passing from this 
theory, then, there is another which establishes the king- 
dom or church of God in the family of Abraham. The ad- 
vocates of this theory insist that, as infants were included 
in the provisions of the covenant made by God with Abra- 
ham, they are in the church* now, and hence comes the doc- 
trine of infant church membership. They further assume 
that baptism came in tlie room of circumcision, and, as infants 
were then circumcised, they must now be baptized ; and 
thus some of them think they have Divine authority for 
infant baptism — which will be considered in due time. 

Others set up the kingdom in the days of John the Bap- 
tist ; hence the name " Baptist Church," etc. Thus we see 
that the time when the kingdom of God was set up on the 
earth is a most important matter — one that, rightly under- 
stood, would tend much to heal the wounds in the body 
caused by the many unfortunate divisions among those 
professing to be the people of God. 

It is said : " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when 
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
with the house of Judah : not according to the covenant 
that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them 
by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; because 
they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them 
not, saith the Lord." Heb. viii : 8, 9. Then we need not 



I50 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

look to the covenant made at the time of the deliverance of 
God's people from Egyptian bondage for the beginning of 
the covenant under which the church of our day was estab- 
lished. It was to be a new covenant, and not according to 
that one. It was to be "a more excellent ministry" — "a 
covenant which was established upon better promises." 
Ver. 6. And wherein was it a better covenant ? The 
old was " a figure for the time then present, in which were 
offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him 
that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience ; 
which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings 
and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of 
reformation." Chap, ix : 9, 10. " But in those sacrifices 
there is a remembrance again made of sins every year ; for 
it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should 
take away sins." Chap, x : 3, 4. But " in that he saith, 
A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that 
which decayeth and waxeth old fs ready to vanish away." 
This old covenant was ready to vanish away and give place 
to the new one. And what were to be its provisions ? 
" This is the covenant that I will make with the house of 
Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws 
in their mind, and write them in their hearts ; and I will 
be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people : and 
they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man 
his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for all shall know me, 
from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to 
their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities 
will I remember no more." Heb. viii : 10-12. Under the 
old covenant, sins were only pardoned a year at a time, 
and thus were remembered again ; but, under the new and 
better covenant, God has promised to be merciful to their 
unrighteousness, and sins and iniquities once pardoned are 
to be remembered no more. 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 151 

But we did not come here to follow out the superior ad- 
vantages of one and the disadvantages of the other, but to 
learn — as we think we have — that we live, not under the 
same covenant that was made with the Jews, under which 
they offered sacrifices according to the law, but under a 
new covenant, superior in its provisions to the old. We 
have now arrived at the proper point to look for the begin- 
ning of this new and better order of things. 

During the time the Jews were held captive by Nebu- 
chadnezzar, king of Babylon, God made known to him, in 
a dream — which was interpreted by Daniel, one of the 
Jewish captives — certain great national changes that were 
to take place, in which were foretold the destruction of his 
own government and three others which were to consec- 
utively arise after it ; and finally the establishment of the 
kingdom of God, which was never to be destroyed, but was 
to fill the whole earth and stand forever. As these king- 
doms were to succeed each other in regular chronological 
order, we have only to follow them up and see the rise 
and fall of each, noting carefully the dates as we proceed, 
in order to see when God established His kingdom. 

For a full account of this remarkable revelation from 
God, the reader is referred to the whole of the second 
chapter of Daniel. We have only room to transcribe the 
dream, and the interpretation of it, contained in the 31st 
to the 45th verse, inclusive : 

"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold, a great image, 
whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee ; and the 
form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine 
gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his 
thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron 
and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut 
out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet, 
that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then 



152 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold 
broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the 
summer threshingfloors, and the wind carried them away ; 
that no place was found for them : and the stone that smote 
the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole 
earth. This is the dream, and we will tell the interpreta- 
tion thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of 
kings : for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, 
power, and strength, and glory ; and wheresoever the chil- 
dren of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of 
the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made 
thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And 
after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and 
another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over 
all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as 
iron ; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all 
things : and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break 
in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet 
and toes part of potter's clay and part of iron : the king- 
dom shall be divided ; but there shall be in it of the 
strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron 
mixed with the miry clay : and as the toes of the feet were 
part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly 
strong and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron 
mixed with the miry clay, they shall mingle themselves 
with the seed of men : but they shall not cleave one to an- 
other, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the 
days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a king- 
dom which shall never be destroyed : and the kingdom 
shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces 
and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. 
Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of 
the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces 
the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold ; the 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 153 

great God hath made known to the king what shall come 
to pass hereafter : and the dream is certain and the inter- 
pretation thereof sure." 

Now, it will be observed that the Lord here tells Nebu- 
chadnezzar that he was the head of gold. This kingdom 
embraced the countries of Chaldea, Assyria, Syria, Arabia, 
and Palestine, and ended with the death of Belshazzar, 
B. C. 538 years, when it was overthrown by Cyrus, king 
of Persia, and Darius, king of Media. These two kings 
were kinsmen ; and after they had thus broken up the 
Chaldean or Babylonian empire, the government assumed 
the name of the Medo-Persian kingdom, that was repre- 
sented by the breast and arms of the image, and was the 
second government in numerical or chronological order. 
It began, as we have seen, 538 years B. C, and was over- 
thrown by Alexander (son of Philip), king of Macedon, 
B. C. 331 years. But he died B. C. 323 years, having 
reigned only a little more than seven years. But as the 
Macedonian empire is represented by the belly and thighs 
of the image, we must look for a division in it. Hence, 
after the death of Alexander, his government became 
divided among his generals. Cassander had JVTacedon and 
Greece ; Lysimachus had Thrace and those parts of Asia 
which lay on the Hellespont and Bosphorus ; Ptolemy had 
Egypt, Lybia, Arabia, Palestine, and Syria ; Seleucus had 
Babylon, Media, Persia, Susiana, Assyria, Bactria, Hyr- 
cania, and all other provinces, even to the Ganges. Thus 
this empire founded on the ruins of the Medo-Persian "had 
rule over all the earth." But as the thighs of brass in the 
image represent the divided state of the empire, the above 
four divisions are soon merged into two, viz : those of the 
Lagidae and Seleucidae, reigning in Egypt and Syria. A 
distinguished historian says : " Their kingdom was no more 
a different kingdom than the parts differ from the whole. It 



154 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

was the same government still continued. They who gov- 
erned were still Macedonians." 

When did these thighs end ? In the year B. C. 30, Oc- 
tavius Caesar overturned the Lagidae, and Egypt, one of 
the thighs, became a Roman province. Not many years 
after this (we have forgotten the date ; our pencil notes here 
have become dim, and we have not the history by us just 
now to which to refer), Pompey overthrew the Seleucidae, 
dethroned Antiochus, and thus Syria, the other thigh, be- 
came a Roman province. Thus we find the Roman govern- 
ment succeeded the Macedonian, and is evidently the fourth 
kingdom represented by the feet and toes of the image that 
stood before Nebuchadnezzar, composed of iron and clay. 

Without going into a minute application of the Script- 
ures to each of these governments, it is sufficient for our 
present purpose to show, as we think we have done, that 
these governments did, in their order, overthrow and suc- 
ceed each other. Then, as they are numbered first, second, 
third, and fourth in the interpretation given by Daniel, it 
is certain that they, following in that numerical order, and 
each one consuming its predecessor, are the kingdoms in- 
dicated. Aryi as they all merged into the Roman govern- 
ment thirty years before the coming of Christ, it follows 
that some time after that period, arid duriiig the existence 
of the Roman government, we may look for the God of 
heaven to set up a kingdom. 

We can not go back behind the date of this dream to 
look for the kingdom, for it was to smite the image on its 
feet — that is, it was to be set up during the existence of 
and come in contact with the government represented by 
the feet. And Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that the whole 
affair was designed to make " known to the king what shall 
come to pass hereafter' — not before the foundation of the 
world, or in the days of Abraham, but hereafter. 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 155 

As this prophecy brings us down to within thirty years 
of the coming of Christ to establish the government — in 
the time of which the kingdom of heaven was set up — we 
may expect the harbinger of the Saviour soon to commence 
preaching about it. Accordingly, Matthew says : " In those 
days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of 
Judea, and saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is 
at hand." Matt, iii : I, 2. Here we find John announcing 
the near approach of the kingdom for the origin of which we 
have been looking. But we are sometimes told that John 
set up the kingdom himself. Let us hear the Saviour on 
this point. After John was cast into prison, and his labors 
were at an end, Jesus taught his disciples to pray as fol- 
lows : " Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy 
name. Thy kingdom come" etc. Matt, vi : 10. Would Jesus 
have instructed his disciples to pray for the kingdom to 
come if it had already come ? It is true, many repeat this 
petition now who believe that the kingdom has long since 
come ; but surely such persons think little about what they 
are saying. Like the school-boy, they find it in their 
lesson and must repeat it. We may pray for the kingdom 
to be advanced in the earth, but we can not pray for it to 
come after it has come, any more than we may pray for 
God to send down the Spirit, since it was sent from heaven 
to the earth on the day of Pentecost, and has been here 
ever since. Once more : When John heard of Jesus, he 
sent to Him to know if He were the Christ, or whether he 
should look for another. After Jesus had answered and 
sent the messengers away, He said to those around Him : 
"Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of 
women, there hath not risen- a greater than John the Bap- 
tist : notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of 
heaven is greater than he." Matt, xi : n. Then, as he 
that was least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than 



156 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

John, it follows that He was not in it ; and surely He did 
not set up the kingdom and fail to enter it himself. Nor 
were the disciples of Jesus, though they had left all and 
followed Him, in the kingdom, for He once rebuked them, 
saying : " Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted 
and become as a little child, ye shall not enter into the 
kingdom of heaven." Matt, xviii : 3. He did not say, 
" Except ye be converted, etc., you shall be turned out of 
the kingdom," but, "ye shall not enter" it — clearly showing 
that they were not then in it, which surely they would have 
been had it then existed. They were to seek the kingdom 
(Luke xii : 31), for it was the Father's good pleasure to 
give it to them (ver. 32). Persons do not seek for that 
which they already have, but may seek for that which is to 
be given or has been promised to them. As the kingdom 
had been promised to them, and they were still to seek it, 
we conclude that it did not then exist. 

But we are not done with the Saviour's teaching on this 
point yet. When He sent forth the twelve apostles, under 
their restricted commission, He told them what to preach ; 
and it is worthy of remark that the language is, verbatim, 
the same as that used by John — " The kingdom of heaven 
is at hand." Matt, x : 7. When He sent out the seventy, 
He gave them, in substance, the same message — "The 
kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." Luke x: 9. 
Now, it is very apparent that the object of all this teaching 
was to let the people know that the kingdom was ap- 
proaching, that they might be prepared for it when it came. 
But when He came into the coasts of Cesarea Philippi, 
and learned, by inquiry, what was said of Him, and Peter 
confessed Him as " the Christ, the Son of the living God," 
He said to Peter, " Upon this rock I will build my church." 
Matt, xvi: 18. This language is too plain to admit of 
doubt. There would be no sense in saying " I v/ill build 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 157 

my house in a certain place" if it had been built long years 
before ; and there would have been just as little sense in the 
language used by the Saviour if He had intended to teach 
that His church or kingdom had been built prior to that 
time. Thus we must press our investigations still further — 
its erection is still later than the time He used this lan- 
guage. 

Six days before His transfiguration He said: "Verily I 
say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, 
which shall not taste of death till they have seen the king- 
dom of God come with power." Mark ix : I. Here we 
not only find Him teaching that the coming of the king- 
dom was yet future, but that it would come in the life-time 
of those then living. But later— when Jesus instituted the 
Supper — He said : " For I say unto you, I will not drink 
of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God shall 
come." Luke xxii : 18. Thus we see that near the end 
of the Saviour's sojourn on the earth He still taught the 
people to look ahead for the coming of the kingdom ; and 
we next propose to show that those to whom He spake so 
understood His teaching : " And as they heard these 
things, He added and spake a parable, because He was 
nigh unto Jerusalem, and because they thought that the 
kingdom of God should immediately appear." Luke xix : 
ii. Thus we see they understood it was yet future, but 
thought its approach nearer than it really was. Coming 
down, now, to the time of His death, "Joseph of Ari- 
mathea, an honorable counselor, which also waited for the 
kingdom of God, came and went in boldly unto Pilate, and 
craved the body of Jesus." Mark xv: 43 ; Luke xxiii 151. 
Here was a man of capacity to understand the Saviour's 
teaching, who waited for the kingdom to come even after 
the Saviour was dead. Surely, he was not waiting for that 
which had already come. 



158 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Let us next examine a prediction made by the prophets: 
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the 
mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the 
top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; 
and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall 
go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of 
the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob ; and he will 
teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his path : for 
out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the 
Lord from Jerusalem." Isa. ii: 2, 3. This very inter- 
esting prophecy was uttered by Micah (chap, iv: 1, 2), in 
very nearly the same words : " But in the last days it shall 
come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord 
shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall 
be exalted above the hills ; and the people shall flow unto 
it. And many nations shall come and say, Come, and let 
us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house 
of the God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways, 
and we will walk in his paths : for the law shall go forth 
of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." This 
prophecy gives us to know that the establishment of the 
mountain of the Lord's house was to take place in the last 
days ; and we can see no other last days that could have 
been intended, only the last days of the Jewish dispensa- 
tion — the last days of that covenant which Paul tells us 
had waxed old and was ready to vanish away. 

But we get another important item of information from 
this prophecy ; and for the sake of it, we have delayed the 
introduction of the whole, until the mind of the reader 
was prepared for it. The word of the Lord was to go forth 
from Jerusalem. Hence, when Jesus was instructing and 
preparing His apostles for the establishment of His king- 
dom, " he said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it 
behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. " 1 59 

third day: and that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all nations, begin- 
ning at Jerusalem." Luke xxiv : 46, 47. Jerusalem, is 
the place from which the word of the Lord was to go forth, 
and it consisted in preaching repentance and remission of 
sins among all nations, and this was to begin there. Jeru- 
salem is the place, beyond the possibility of a doubt. 

But to establish a kingdom, there must be perso7is duly 
qualified for the work ; hence Jesus, at the beginning of 
His personal ministry, selected twelve men and took them 
under His immediate care, and for three years and a half 
instructed them in the work they were to perform — not 
only so, but He selected one of them to lead off as foreman, 
in the opening of His kingdom, and said to him : " Thou 
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ; and I will 
give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- 
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed 
in heaven." To Peter, then, was given the exalted privi- 
lege of first opening the kingdom, with power to bind and 
to loose on the earth, with the assurance that his acts 
would be recognized in heaven. Notwithstanding Peter 
had been a constant attendant upon the teaching of the 
Saviour, this work was too important to be intrusted to 
unaided human frailty — man is imperfect and forgetful : 
an important item of instruction given by the Lord 
might be forgotten by Peter when the final destiny of the 
human race trembled in awful suspense upon his decision — 
hence says the Saviour : " But the Comforter, which is the 
Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he 
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your re- 
membrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John xiv : 
26. Thus he is secured against the frailties and imperfec- 



l6o THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tions of human recollection. But operations are to begin 
at Jerusalem ; therefore he must go there and wait the 
time appointed of the Father ; hence Jesus says to 
him, with the other apostles : " Behold, I send the promise 
of my Father upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Jeru- 
salem, until ye be endued with power from on high." 
Luke xxiv : 49. " Jerusalem is the place you are to begin, 
Peter ; therefore go there, and wait for the coronation of 
Jesus Christ as King of the kingdom to be set up ; then He 
will send you the promised aid from on high." Shall we 
go with him to the appointed place and wait the develop- 
ments of the time when Jesus is crowned King of kings 
and Lord of lords ? Without a king there can not be a 
kingdom. " He led them out as far as Bethany, and he 
lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to 
pass, that while he blessed them, he was parted from them, 
and carried up into heaven." Luke xxiv: 50, 51. An- 
gelic hosts escort Him to the throne appointed of His Fa- 
ther. On nearing the portals of the skies, His attendants 
demand admittance, saying : " Lift up your heads, O ye 
gates ; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors ; and the 
King of glory shall come in." Before the porters of heav- 
en admit the parties demanding entrance, they ask, "Who 
is the King of glory ? " The attendants answer, " The 
Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle." And 
again the demand is repeated : " Lift up your heads, O 
ye gates ; even lift them up, ye everlasting doors ; and the 
King of glory shall come in." Then the question again 
comes from within, "Who is the King of glory? " and the 
same announcement is made: "The Lord of hosts, he is 
the King of glory." Ps. xxiv. He is admitted, crowned 
King — angels, principalities, and powers are made subject 
to Him. The Holy Spirit is dispatched with the joyful 
tidings from heaven to Jerusalem — "And they were all 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. l6l 

filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts ii : 4. 
And what did they say ? Here is Peter, the proper per- 
son, at Jerusalem, the proper place ; and Jesus, as King, is 
on His throne — surely, all things are ready now. Among 
other things, Peter said: "Therefore being by the right 
hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father 
the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, 
which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended 
into the heavens : but he saith himself, The Lord said unto 
my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes 
thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know 
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye 
have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Acts ii : 33-36. 
Here, for the first time, is the grand fact announced to 
the denizens of earth — that Jesus reigns in the kingdom 
of heaven. Persons ask admittance : Peter uses the keys 
of the kingdom ; they enter and are added to them. 
Them ! who ? The disciples — the hundred and twenty. 
After this, the church being organized, the " Lord was add- 
ing daily those that *were being saved."* If, prior to 
this time, the kingdom had been in existence, it would have 
been a kingdom without a king, for Jesus was not then 
crowned King — "the Holy Ghost was not then given 
(John vii: 39) ; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." 
Then, if the " body, which is the church" (Col. i : 24), had 
existed prior to the glorification of Jesus, and the descent 
of the Holy Spirit, it would have been a body without a 
spirit, and therefore a dead body, as " the body without the 
spirit is dead." Jas. ii : 26. Again : " He is the head of the 
body, the church." Col. i: 18. When did he become the 
head of the body ? " The eyes of your understanding 



* Twofold New Testament, by T. S. Green — Acts ii : 47. 
14 



1 62 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of 
your calling, and what the riches of the glory of his in- 
heritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding great- 
ness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the 
working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, 
when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own 
right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality, 
and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that 
is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is 
to come : and hath put all things under his feet, and gave 
him to be head over all things to the church." Eph. i : 
18-22. Then, as He was never given to be the head of 
the church until He was set at his Fathers right hand, 
and obtained His exalted name, it follows that, if the 
church or body existed prior to that time, it was a body 
without a head. And for the very same reason, if the king- 
dom, church, or body was not then set up, Jesus was a 
king without a kingdom, and a head without a body, and 
the Spirit was upon the earth without a habitation or 
dwelling-place. 

One more point, and we are done on this branch of the 
subject. When Peter was making his defense before his 
brethren, for going down to the house of Cornelius — in 
speaking of the events that occurred there, he says : " And 
as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us 
at the beginning." Acts xi : 15. Here we have the very 
word beginning, referring to the time when the Holy 
Ghost fell on the disciples on the day of Pentecost. The 
Holy Ghost fell on them on that day, and Peter refers to 
it as at the beginning. Beginning of what ? Let him who 
thinks the kingdom or church began some time prior to the 
clay of Pentecost, tell us what beginning is here referred to. 

Prior to the day of Pentecost the church was always 
spoken of as a thing of the future ; subsequently it was 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 1 63 

spoken of as having a real existence. John, Jesus, and 
the disciples preached that it was at hand. We have seen 
that Jesus taught His disciples to pray for it to come — said 
He would build it — that it should come in the life-time of 
those present. After that day, Luke says " great fear came 
upon all the church!' Acts v: n. "There was a great 
persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem." 
Acts viii : i. "Tidings of these things came unto the 
ears of the church which was in Jerusalem." Acts xi : 22. 
"A whole year they assembled themselves with the church 
and taught much people." Ver. 26. Paul addressed his let- 
ters to " the church of God at Corinth." 1 Cor. i : 2 ; 2 Cor. i : 
1. And he said : " God is not the author of confusion, but of 
peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women 
keep silence in the churches!' 1 Cor. xiv : 33, 34. He 
admonishes them to " give none offense, neither to the 
Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." 
1 Cor. x: 32. "If any man seem to be contentious, we 
have no such custom, neither the churches of God." 1 Cor. 
xi : 16. "I persecuted the church of God." 1 Cor. xv: 
9; Gal. i: 13. These passages, with others which we 
might present, show that after Pentecost the church was 
spoken of as a thing of real existence. Why this differ- 
ence in the phraseology of the New Testament before and 
after that day ? If the church existed before Pentecost, 
why was it not spoken of in the same way it was after- 
ward ? Before that day, Jesus charged Peter to feed His 
lambs — feed His sheep (John xxi : 15, 16) ; after that time, 
Paul exhorted the elders "to feed the church of God." 
Acts xx : 28. Before the day of Pentecost, Jesus said, " On 
this rock I will build my church ;" after that day, Paul told 
the church at Corinth that it was "God's building" (1 Cor. 
iii : 9) — « the temple of God." Ver. 16. Before Pentecost, 
Jesus said to the disciples that, unless they were con- 



164 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

verted, they should jiot enter into the kingdom (Matt, 
xviii : 3) ; but after that, Paul told the disciples that they 
had been translated into the kingdom. (Col. i: 12). Why 
were the disciples spoken of as having to enter the king- 
dom before Pentecost, but as in it afterward ? These dis- 
tinctions might be greatly multiplied, but enough has been 
presented to show a difference in style inexplicable upon 
any other hypothesis than that the church began on the day 
of Pentecost, and was therefore spoken of as a thing future 
before that day, but as an existing organization afterward. 

We are not unaware that there are scriptures which 
seem to indicate the existence of the kingdom at the time 
Jesus was personally on the earth ; but we take it to be 
an inflexible rule of biblical interpretation that no obscure 
passage must be so construed as to come in contact with a 
principle, doctrine, or fact clearly taught elsewhere. The 
Bible must be harmonious in all its teaching, otherwise it 
can not be of God. Hence we need not seek a theory 
contradicting any thing so clearly taught as is the fact 
that the church of God began on the earth, in Jerusalem, 
on the first Pentecost after the crucifixion of Jesus. Such 
efforts are much more likely to make skeptics than Chris- 
tians of the untaught. 

Before the temple was built by Solomon, all the mate- 
rial was so prepared that when every piece was placed in 
its position the building was complete without the sound 
of a hammer in its construction. All parties agree that 
this was typical of the church of God. If so, we may ex- 
pect to find material prepared for the Christian temple 
before its erection. John began the preparation of this 
material, Jesus completed it. John preached the baptism 
of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark i : 4), and the 
sins of those who complied with the terms imposed were 
remitted, in accordance with the gospel preached by him. 



ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 1 65 

When he was cast into prison and his ministry ceased, 
that of Jesus began (Matt, iv: 12-17); hence, in this 
respect, the ministry of Jesus was but a continuance of the 
preparatory ministry begun by John. While Jesus did 
many things which John could not do, their preaching, in 
this respect, was the same. Jesus established His claims 
to be King — gave laws for the establishment and govern- 
ment of His church — qualified men to organize it — entered 
heaven with His blood, where He made the atonement for 
the world — was crowned King, and sent the Holy Spirit 
with the news of His coronation — thus perfecting the 
preparations for the building of His temple. The build- 
ers, guided by the Holy Spirit, put the material in position 
and the spiritual temple stood forth. As the material 
which composed the temple of Solomon was prepared 
before it was placed together, so the material which first 
constituted the temple of God was made ready by John 
and Jesus for position in it. Hence it existed in its ma- 
terials before the day of Pentecost; but, as an organic 
structure before that time, it had no existence. 

We could give much testimony from learned men who 
differ from us on other matters, yet agree with us here. 
In Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article Church, we find 
the following paragraph : 

"From the gospels we learn little in the way of detail 
as to the kingdom which was to be established. It was in 
the great forty days which intervened between the resur- 
rection and the ascension that our Lord explained specifi- 
cally to his apostles ' the things pertaining to the king- 
dom of God (Acts i : 3) ; that is, His future church — its 
origin. The removal of Christ from the earth had left His 
followers a shattered company, with no bond of external 
or internal cohesion, except' the memory of the Master 
whom they had lost, and the recollection of his injunctions 



1 66 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

to unity and love, together with the occasional glimpses of 
His presence which were vouchsafed them. They con- 
tinued together, meeting for prayer and supplication, and 
waiting for Christ's promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
They numbered in all some 140 persons — namely, the 
eleven, the faithful women, the Lord's mother, his breth- 
ren, and 120 disciples. They had faith to believe that 
there was a work before them which they were about to 
be called to perform, and, that they might be ready to do 
it, they filled up the number of the twelve by the appoint- 
ment of Matthias 'to be a true witness,' with the eleven, 
' of the resurrection.' The day of Pentecost is the birth- 
day of the Christian church. The Spirit, who was then 
sent by the Son from the Father, and rested on each of 
the disciples, combined them once more into a whole — 
combined them as they never had been before combined, 
by an internal and spiritual bond of cohesion. Before, 
they had been individual followers of Jesus ; now they be- 
came his mystical body, animated by his Spirit." 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 

WE have found that the Church of God was organ- 
ized in the city of Jerusalem, on the day of Pen- 
tecost ; and it is worthy of note that all the forms of speech 
used to indicate it are in the singular number ; thus : 
" kingdom of heaven," " kingdom of God," " kingdom of 
his dear Son," "church of God," "household of faith," 
"house of God," "the pillar and ground of the truth," 
" the body," " temple of God," etc., etc. Where the word 
churches occurs in the plural number, it has reference 
to the congregations worshiping at particular places, and 
not to the kingdom, body, or church, which has been the 
object of our search. Paul tells his Ephesian brethren 
that "there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are 
called in one hope of your callling ; one Lord, one faith, 
one baptism, one God and Father of all." Eph. iv : 4-6. 
The connection in which we here have the phrase "one 
body" as clearly shows that there is but one body as does 
the phrase "one God" show that there is but one God. 
But, in Rom. xii : 4, 5, we are told that, "as we have 
many members in one body, and all members have not the 
same office : so we, being many, are one body in Christ." 
And again : " But now are they many members, yet but 
one body!' 1 Cor. xii: 20. Thus we see that language 
can not more clearly indicate any thing than that Christ 
has but one organized body on the earth. What consti- 

(167) 



1 68 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tutes this one body? What is this one body? With 
reference to Christ, Paul says "he is the head of the 
body, the church." Col. i: 18. And again, verse 24, he 
says: " Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill 
up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my 
flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." Here we 
are expressly told that the body is the church. Once 
more : " And hath put all things under his feet, and gave 
him to be the head over all things to the church, which is 
his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all." Eph. i : 
22, 23. Here the order is reversed — the church is His 
body. Then the church and body are the same, and are used 
interchangeably ; but the unity of thought is quite apparent. 
" The body," " the church " — not a church, some church, 
or any church, but the church. There being but one 
body, and that being the church, it follows that there is but 
one church. Then if, in kindness, we may be plain and 
candid, without being offensive, we would like to inquire 
how it comes to pass that there is a Catholic Church, 
an Episcopalian Church, several kinds of Presbyterian 
Churches, several kinds of Methodist Churches, several 
kinds of Baptist Churches, etc., etc., each claiming Di- 
vine authority for its existence, and yet all acknowledging 
the Bible to be true, and an infallible rule of faith and 
practice. Is there not something wrong here ? We hear 
Paul addressing " the church of God at Corinth," but he 
never speaks to or instructs the Presbyterian Church, the 
Methodist Church, the Baptist Church ; nor does he ever 
address any class of persons as a church at all, only those 
who compose the one body, or kingdom, of which Christ 
is the Head and King. 

But we are told that all these sectarian organizations 
are branches of the one church, or body, of which Paul 
speaks. This makes the matter no better, but rather worse. 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 69 

Paul nowhere addresses the Presbyterian branch of the 
church, the Methodist brajich of the church, or the Baptist 
branch of the church. In order to sensibly speak of 
branches of the church, one of three figures must be before 
the mind, viz : a tree with trunk and branches, a vine 
with its stem and branches, or a stream with its tributa- 
ries. A tree and its branches and a vine and its branches 
are so nearly alike in their illustrative character, that we 
may consider thern together, while we see if either or both 
of them will symbolize the church. When did these 
branch organizations shoot forth ? We do not know that 
we can correctly date the origin of all of them ; nor is it 
necessary that we should go back to the beginning of the 
Roman Catholic and Greek Churches ; for those who ad- 
vocate the branch church doctrine do not admit these to be 
sister branches with them at all. According to Gibbon, the 

Episcopal Church began about the year 1521. 

Presbyterianism began about the year 1537. 

Scotch Presbyterianism about the year 1558. 

English Presbyterianism about the year 1572. 

Baptistism began about the year 161 1. 

Quakerism began about the year 1655. 

Methodism began about the year 1729. 

Secederism began about the year 1733. 

Cumberland Presbyterianism, according to Burder, began 
on Cumberland River about the year 18 10. 

The church of God began in Jerusalem about the 
year 33. 

We believe these embrace the most prominent organiza- 
tions of this country, and we see that we can not get a 
single one, except the church of God, further back than 
the sixteenth century. Was the church without branches 
for the first fifteen hundred years of its existence? and did 
she bring no fruit during that time ? Neither tree nor 
*5 



L/O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

vine can maintain its life and bring forth fruit without 
branches ; yet if these organizations are the branches, then 
it follows that the church was a branchless, fruitless, life- 
less thing until they came into being. Since then, in one- 
third of that time, it has put forth a host of branches, and 
branches of branches, and branches of branches of 
branches, until they have become so thick that we are in- 
clined to think that the pruning-hook is necessary. Each 
of the branches differs in constitution, character, and fruit, 
from all the others. Such a tree ! such a tree ! ! What a 
monstrosity ! ! ! A tree bearing apples, pears, peaches, apri- 
cots, quinces, plums, cherries, berries, nuts of all kinds, 
"hard-shell" and soft, melons, pumpkins, squashes, etc., etc., 
and yet all come from the same "incorruptible seed" — the 
word of God ! Strange as such a sight would appear, it 
would take a tree with more different kinds of branches and 
fruits than we have mentioned to represent the church of 
God, if it has as many branch churches growing out of it 
as there are denominations claiming to be branches of it at 
present. But we may be told that this variety was pro- 
duced by grafting. If so, the grafting was not done by Paul, 
nor in accordance with his formula; for he speaks of 
branches which were "cut out of the olive tree which is 
wild by nature, and were graffed contrary to nature into a 
good olive tree." Rom. xi : 24. Naturally, branches bear 
fruit like that of the tree from which they were taken, but 
Paul's grafts bore fruit contrary to nature, like the natu- 
ral branches of the tree into which his grafts were inserted : 
they were taken from the world, and were ingrafted into 
Christ, the true Vine — made members of his body, or 
church ; and, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, Chris- 
tianity, or pure and undeflled religion, was the fruit. 
Therefore, if these sectarian parties were graffed branches 
of the one church of God, they would all partake of its 






THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. I?] 

"root and fatness," and there would be no difference in 
them or their fruit. One could not bear sprinkling as bap- 
tism, another pouring, another immersion, another all three, 
and another none at all ; another, vicarious atonement, to- 
tal hereditary depravity, abstract spiritual operations, un- 
conditional election and reprobation, and many other doc- 
trines differing as widely as these do. 

Once more : Men usually take branches for grafting 
from other trees than the one into which they are to be 
inserted. It is true, Paul tells us that these natural 
branches that were broken off because of unbelief, might 
be grafted in again if they abode not in unbelief; but 
when they were broken off they were as foreign as the 
unnatural branches. Then, as the one church of God is 
supposed to be made up of these branch churches, where 
is the trunk into which they were grafted ? and where is 
the tree from which they were taken before grafting ? Is 
this great church tree all branches ? and from what church 
were these branch churches taken before grafting ? These 
branches are churches, according to the theory, and not 
individuals. Then whence came they ? They were not 
taken from the church of God, for there would be no use 
in taking a branch from a tree and grafting it back into 
the same tree. Then from what tree or vine were they 
taken ? or, to speak without a figure, from what church did 
these branches come, before they became part and par- 
cel of the church made up of them ? It will not do to 
say they were taken from the world, for they came from 
there as individuals, not as organizations. 

And if we look at it under the figure of a great stream 
and its branches or tributaries, the same difficulties are in 
the way. As these organizations are branches, where is 
the main stream into which they flow ? and where are the 
fountains whence they come ? They come not from Christ, 



172 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the Fountain of living water ; for all the branches making 
up a great stream come not from the same spring, for then 
they would be a unit from the first, and there could be no 
branches at all. Then, if they come not from the inex- 
haustible Fountain of the human imagination, we know not 
their source. Let us go to Christ, whence flows the pure, 
limpid stream of living water, of which he who drinks shall 
thirst no more, but have a well of water springing up in 
him unto eternal life. 

But we do read of branches, and we will now try to find 
what a branch is. Jesus says, " I am the vine, ye are the 
branches." John xv : 5. Here, Jesus speaks of his disciples 
as branches of Him, and in Him. " Abide in me," says 
He, verse 4. Paul speaks of himself and brethren as hav- 
ing been " baptized into Christ." Rom. vi : 3. His bap- 
tism did not give him a literal entrance into Christ, but 
it gave him entrance into His body, or the body organ- 
ized by His authority, by which a relationship was cre- 
ated like that of a vine and its branches, or a body 
and its members. The same writer tells us that " by one 
Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 1 Cor. xii : 13. 
By the authority and according to the teaching of one 
Spirit we are all baptized in water into one body, or church, 
and become members of it ; and when speaking to the 
Romans, with regard to the same relationship, he says, by 
baptism we enter into Christ; and thus individuals, as 
such, become branches of Him, the true Vine ; but an or- 
ganized body of persons or an organized church can not, as 
such, be termed a branch of the one body, or church, of 
God. If any one insists that it can, then we would gladly 
see the scriptural process by which such a relationship is 
created. We are profoundly ignorant of any such instruc- 
tions, as well as any precedent or authority of any kind 
authorizing it ; hence when asked, as we frequently are, to 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 73 

what branch of the church we belong, we answer, that we 
claim to be an humble branch ourself, but know nothing 
about belonging to branches. 

Jesus, as King, has but one kingdom ; as Head, has but 
one body ; as Bridegroom, has but one bride, and is the 
Author of but one church, and His people should be one 
people, and no divisions among them. But we have heard 
persons — yes, indeed, preachers too — thank God for divis- 
ions, so as to furnish an organization suited to the taste of 
every one, that the people may be without excuse for diso- 
bedience to the gospel. "Thank God," say they, "that 
there are so many different denominations, each holding a 
different doctrine, that all can be suited. If our church 
do n't suit you, in the multitude of others you can find 
one suited to your fancy ; so you can not fail to be suited." 
Such persons, to say the least of it, have a different view 
of this subject from that entertained by the Saviour, for 
He considered unity among His people as of the utmost 
importance, and prayed for it in His most solemn prayer 
to His Father: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for 
them also which shall believe on me through their word ; 
that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I 
in thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may 
believe that thou hast sent me." John xvii : 20, 21. Thus 
we see that Jesus considered divisions among those claim- 
ing to be His people as a most fruitful source of infidelity ; 
and He was not mistaken. We verily believe that divisions 
among those claiming to be the people of God have made 
more infidels than all the writings of Voltaire, Paine, Gib- 
bon, Hume, Owen, and every other avowed infidel that has 
ever wielded a pen on the earth. A celebrated Indian 
chief, when asked by a missionary what he thought of the 
religion of the Bible, said : " Go home, and agree among 
yourselves, and then come to me, and I will consider the 



174 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

matter." Hence Paul, unlike those who love and create 
divisions, said: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, that you speak the same thing, and 
that there be no divisions among you." I Cor. i : 10. 

But we have been asked why the Lord's people are not 
one, if such be the import of His prayer ? It is said that his 
Father always heard Him when He prayed, and not only 
heard Him, but granted His petitions, or that for which 
He prayed : why, then, are His people divided? Is it not 
possible that the class of persons for whom he prayed are 
all one? He prayed for unity among those who should 
believe on Him through the words of His apostles. He did 
not pray for such as might believe on Him through the 
traditions of their fathers, or the teachings of men, as set 
forth in Disciplines, Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, etc., 
which might be taught them from childhood. These are 
the sources of much of the faith that is in the world, and 
persons whose faith comes in this way come not within 
the range of the prayer made by the Saviour. 

It is sometimes said that these different organizations are 
only as many different roads leading to heaven, and when 
we get there, we will not be asked which road we came, or 
what kind of conveyance brought us there. We are willing 
to grant that no such questions will be asked those who get 
there. But will we get there? This is the important in- 
quiry. We would be glad to see proof of the fact that there 
are as many ways to heaven as there ai'e denominations in the 
world, before we accept the doctrine as safe. The greatest 
Teacher that has ever condescended to instruct man on 
this subject said : " Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, 
which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." 
Matt, vii : 14. Again He said, " I am the way." John 
xiv : 6. The Pharisees, recognizing this fact, said : " Mas- 
ter, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 75 

God in truth." Matt, xxii : 16; Mark xii : 14; Luke xx : 
21. Even wicked spirits gave testimony to the same fact, 
for through a damsel one said, "These men are the serv- 
ants of the most high God, which show unto us the zvay 
of salvation." Acts xvi : 17. Peter says "the way of 
truth shall be evil spoken of." 2 Pet. ii : 2. Verse 15, he 
says certain persons had " forsaken the right way!' And 
again, verse 21, he says "it had been better for them not 
to have known the way of righteousness." Apollos " was 
instructed in the way of the Lord," but when Aquilla and 
Priscilla found that he knew only the baptism of John, 
they "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly." 
Acts xviii : 25, 26. The Holy Spirit signified that the way 
into the holiest of all was " not made manifest while the first 
tabernacle was standing." Heb. ix : 8. Thus we find Jesus, 
the Holy Spirit, evil spirits, opposing Pharisees, apostles, 
and other disciples, all speaking of the way to heaven, but 
none of them speak of the ways, or in any way imply that 
there are more ways than one from earth to heaven ; hence 
we conclude that there is one way, and. only one way. We 
read of" wicked ways," "pernicious ways," "ways of death," 
etc., but the way to heaven is so straight and narrow that 
it is found by few. Indeed, there can be but one straight 
line between any two points ; hence those who do not 
travel the straight and narrow way, must necessarily travel 
crooked ways, which are marked out by men, and not by 
the Lord. " It is not in man that walketh to direct his 
steps." Jer. x: 23. Surely, then, we had better walk as 
God directs. Guided by Him, we are safe, but there is 
safety nowhere else. 

But there is another thought connected with these or- 
ganizations which demands our attention just here. Quite 
a number of them recognize each other as orthadox, yet 
they differ very widely in their teaching upon matters 



I76 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

vital to the interest of Christianity. As an intended com- 
pliment to the society of his town, a distinguished clergy- 
man once said : " There is great unanimity among the 
orthodox denominations of our town — that is, Methodists, 
Baptists, Presbyterians, and Cumberland Presbyterians." 
As the Christian Church was the only church, in the town 
alluded to by the gentleman, not mentioned in his list of 
orthodox denominations, of course it was regarded by him 
as heterodox — so much so, indeed,, that it was important 
to specify the orthodox denominations, lest their " good 
name" be injured by an association with what he was 
pleased to call " Campbellisnr" under the general name of 
orthodoxy. We have no complaint to make as to the mo- 
tives which prompted the statement, for we doubt not that 
it was made, as Saul persecuted Christians, in all good 
conscience, but we mention it because it gives us a pretty 
fair idea of the general use, or rather abuse, of this term ; 
and we propose to examine briefly the claim of these de- 
nominations to it. 

We have the word orthodoxy from ort/zos, right, true, 
and doxa y opinion, from dokeo t to think ; hence its import, 
to think right — soundness of faith — a belief in the genu- 
ine doctrines taught in the Scriptures. Modern divines, 
however, define the term about thus : " Orthodoxy is my 
doxy, and heterodoxy is your doxy, to the full extent of 
your difference from me. Then, as orthodoxy means to 
think right — a belief in the genuine doctrine taught in the 
Scriptures — soundness of faith, etc., it will be expected 
that these so-called orthodox denominations will agree 
among themselves ; for it can not be maintained that they 
are all sound in faith, and believe the genuine doctrine 
taught in the Scriptures, while they believe and teach 
doctrines contradictory to each other. Things which are 
equal to the same thing, are equal to each other ; hence if 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 77 

each of these is equal to the genuine doctrine of the Bible, 
they will be found equal to or exactly like each other. Are 
they thus united, speaking the same thing? We will see. 

The Presbyterians say " God, from all eternity, did, by 
the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and 
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." Confes- 
sion of Faith, chap, iii, sec. I. The Methodists, Baptists, 
and Cumberlands say : Not so : it comes to pass that men 
kill, steal, and do many other things which God has pos- 
itively forbidden ; hence He could not have ordained that 
they should thus act, and then threaten the guilty with end- 
less punishment for carrying out His own ordination. The 
Presbyterians say : " By the decree of God, for the manifes- 
tation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated 
unto everlasting life and others fore-ordained to everlast- 
ing death. These angels and men thus predestinated and 
fore-ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, 
and their number is so certain and definite that it can not 
be either increased or diminished." Conf. Faith, chap, iii, 
sees. 3, 4. The others say : Not so : every man may make 
his election or condemnation sure, as he chooses ; hence 
they seek, with commendable zeal, to increase the number 
of the elect, and thus diminish the number of the repro- 
bates. Presbyterians say : " Elect infants, dying in in- 
fancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the 
Spirit, who worketh when, where, and how he pleaseth ; 
so, also, are all other elect persons who are incapable of 
being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Others 
not elected, although they may be called by the ministry 
of the Word, and may have some common operations of 
the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and there- 
fore never can be saved? Conf. Faith, chap, x, sees. 3, 4. 
The others say : Not so : all infants, dying in infancy, are 
saved ; and all other persons, who are incapable of being 



I78 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, are saved, if 
they die in that condition. The Presbyterians, Baptists, 
and Cumberlands say : " Once in grace, always in grace" — 
that is, after a man is truly converted, he can not fall away 
and be lost. The Methodists say : Not so : let him that 
thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall; for though he 
be a child of God, an heir of heaven, still there is great 
danger that he may fall away and be lost forever. The 
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands say that in- 
fants of believing parents are proper subjects of baptism, 
and are entitled to membership in the church. Baptists 
say : Not so : faith is a prerequisite to baptism, and as in- 
fants can not believe, they should not be baptized. They 
are not capable of appreciating law, and hence are not sub- 
jects of government, and therefore are not fit subjects 
for the Lord's kingdom. Presbyterians, Methodists, and 
Cumberlands say that baptism is rightly administered by 
sprinkling or pouring water on the head of the candidate. 
Baptists say : Not so : there is as much authority for put- 
ting water on the feet as on the head for baptism. The 
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands say all Chris- 
tians should eat at the Lord's table together when con- 
venient. Baptists say : Not so : Presbyterians, Method- 
ists, and Cumberlands are good Christians, and therefore 
fit to surround the throne of God in heaven, but they 
can not eat at a Baptist table. When they come to our 
house, they may preach, pray, sing, exhort, and labor for 
us, but they shall not eat with us. Presbyterians say : 
" Neither are any others redeemed by Christ, effectually 
called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the 
elect only." Conf. Faith, chap, iii, sec. 6. The others say 
Christ tasted death for every man. And thus we might 
multiply differences almost ad infinitum. Now is it pos- 
sible that these contradictory doctrines are all the "gen- 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 79 

uine doctrine taught in the Scriptures ?" They are the 
doctrines of these so-called orthodox denominations. Or- 
thodoxy means " to believe the genuine doctrine taught in 
the Scriptures." One of two things is, therefore, certain : 
the Scriptures teach these contradictory doctrines held by 
these denominations, or the word orthodoxy is a misnomer 
when applied to them, and they have no right to appro- 
priate it to themselves. 

But say they : " We all believe in one great God, the 
Author of the Bible, the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, 
the operation of the Spirit in conversion, the importance 
of a hearty faith in Christ as the Saviour of sinners, a 
thorough change of heart, and repentance for sins com- 
mitted, and a turning from sin to holiness : and as we are 
agreed in these great leading features of the genuine doc- 
trine of the Bible, we claim to be orthodox, though we 
may and do differ in these minor matters of which you 
have been speaking." But stop ! Do we not believe in 
these great leading features of doctrine, and insist upon 
them as strongly as you do, and do you not still regard 
us as heterodox ? What, then, is the matter ? It must 
be something else that constitutes you orthodox and 
us heterodox. What is it ? It is this : these denomina- 
tions all unite in telling penitent sinners to come to the 
altar, anxious-seat, or mourner's bench, to pray and be 
prayed for in order to remission of sins, and we tell the 
same persons to repent and be baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ for remission. This is the true secret of the 
whole matter. Here is the line between so-called ortho- 
doxy and heterodoxy. Can they find authority for their 
instructions in the Bible ? Not if the salvation of the 
world depended on it. Can we find authority for our 
teaching in the Bible ? Most assuredly we can find it, 
both in precept and example. We have the precise 



l8o THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

words : " Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." 
Acts ii : 38. " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins." Acts xxii : 16. " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." Mark xvi : 16. Then, if to believe and 
teach the genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures con- 
stitutes orthodoxy, we are orthodox according to the true 
import of that term. There is no escape from this posi- 
tion. From our very heart have we been grieved at efforts 
made to make Christianity look as much like sectarianism 
as possible, in order to court the popular cant of ortho- 
doxy. While we continue to believe and practice the gen- 
uine doctrine taught in the Bible, we are orthodox ; but 
when we forsake these truths, in order to get the world to 
call us orthodox, we give evidence that we love the praise 
of men more than the approbation of God. 'Tis better 
to show that we have a valid claim to the title, by believ- 
ing the truth, than seek to make our faith look like error 
to induce the world to call us orthodox. 

But we often hear persons say, when called on to obey 
the gospel, that " there are so many denominations differ- 
ing so widely from each other in their teaching of what is 
in the Bible, that we know not which is the right church. 
They all teach different doctrines, and hence may all be 
wrong, but can not all be right, for the Bible must be har- 
monious in all its parts, if it be a revelation from God. 
There is the most perfect harmony in all His laws govern- 
ing the material universe ; hence we are not prepared to 
receive contradictory theories as law from Him for the 
government of His creature man, for whom all other things 
were made. We see not why His laws for the government 
of the noblest of His work, made in His own image, should 
be less harmonious and perfect than laws given by Him 
in the great book of nature. We therefore conclude that 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. l8l 

some of these organizations, if not all, are spurious ; and 
if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare 
himself to battle ?" Truly, this is a difficulty, but we beg 
such persons to remember that there never was a spu- 
rious coin yet that was not an imitation of something 
pure ; hence, as there are spurious churches, we may be 
sure that there is one of pure origin somewhere ; and 
we propose to assist the reader in recognizing the one 
body, or church of God, of which all others are coun- 
terfeits ; and many of them but poorly executed, at that. 
We think that if we subject the church to the same cri- 
teria by which we test the identity of persons and things, 
it will be found with such marks, features and other means 
of recognition as will enable us to identify it with great 
certainty. 

Were you hunting for a man who was personally a 
stranger to you, whose name was Martin Luther, and you 
were to find a man whose name was John Wesley, you 
would know at once that he was not the man for whom 
you were hunting, unless he had changed his name. If 
you knew him to bear the character of an honest man, 
you. would continue your search until you found a man 
wearing the name of the man you desired to see. Then, 
if you wish to find "the church of God" (i Cor. i: 2; 
2 Cor. i : 1), and you find a church calling herself the Ro- 
man Catholic Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Baptist 
Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, 
or any other unscriptural name, is it not enough to cause 
you to suspect that you have not found the true church, 
and will continue your search a little further ? There are 
doubtless many good persons in each of these sectarian 
organizations, but this proves not that anyone of them, or 
all of them together, is the church of God. God had a 
people in Babylon, but He admonished them to come out 



152 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of her, that they partake not of her sins, and receive not 
of her plagues (Rev. xviii : 4). 

But we are told that there is nothing in names. Then 
why not as well expect salvation through one name as 
another ? Speaking of Christ's name, Peter says : " Neither 
is there salvation in any other: for there is none other 
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must 
be saved." Acts iv: 12. But if there is nothing in 
names, we may as well expect salvation through the name 
of Beelzebub as through the name of the Lord. If there 
is nothing in these denominational names, why think so 
much of them as to prefer to wear them rather than the 
name that honors Christ our head ? Do they not tend to 
keep up divisions and gender strife among good people ? 
and if there is nothing in them, why not give them up ? 
Let us not strive about words or names, to no profit ; for 
if there is nothing in them, we may give them up and lose 
nothing ; but by exchanging them for the name authorized 
of God we may gain much. 

The church is said to be "the bride, the Lamb's wife" 
(Rev. xxi: 9), and, as such, should wear the name of her 
Bridegroom. "The head of the woman is the man" 
(1 Cor. xi : 3), and hence she honors her head by wearing 
his name ; and she dishonors her head when she refuses 
to w T ear his name and assumes another. Suppose a citi- 
zen of your neighborhood were to marry a wife, and when 
she is called by his name, she objects to it, saying, " There 
are so many branches of my husband's family that, for the 
sake of distinction, I prefer to be called by some other 
name," and thereupon assumes another — perhaps the name 
of some other man of her acquaintance — what would you 
think of her ? and how would you treat her if she were 
your wife ? Would she not have dishonored you, as her 
husband ? dishonored him whose name she wished to as- 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 83 

sume ? and dishonored and disgraced herself? and would 
you not regard her as unworthy to be your wife or enjoy 
the privileges of your house ? Would she not have placed 
a foul blot upon her character, that would render her un- 
worthy the confidence and respect of the virtuous and 
good of every age and clime ? and would you not feel a 
little like telling her to go and live with him whose name 
she preferred to wear ? What say you ? Then if the wife of 
a citizen would so far dishonor her husband, and degrade 
and debase herself by refusing to wear the name of her hus- 
band, will it be less dishonoring to Christ for His bride to 
refuse to wear and be called by His name ? and will it be less 
a blight upon the character of His bride for her to assume 
and wear other names than His ? Will He own that organi- 
zation as His bride, before His Father in the great day of 
the marriage, that has, owns, and willingly wears some 
other name than His ? Will He say : " My wife hath made 
herself ready, and to her was granted that she should be 
arrayed in fine linen, clean and white : for the fine linen is 
the righteousness of saints." Rev. xix : 7, 8. Is the as- 
sumption of other names than that of the husband, the 
righteousness of saints that is comparable to fine linen, 
clean and white, with which the church is to be clad as a 
bride adorned for her husband when he comes to receive 
her? 

By the way, what will our Baptist friends do for a name 
now? They adopted the official name of John the Bap- 
tist as their denominational name, preferring to honor the 
servant of the Bridegroom rather than the Bridegroom 
himself; but the Bible Union, to which, as a church, they 
are fully committed, wiped the word Baptist from the re- 
vised edition of the New Testament, giving us "Immerser" 
instead thereof; thus, "John the Immerser." (See revised 
New Testament, Matt. 3:1.) Will they keep pace with the 



I84 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

translation and adopt the name " Immerser Chuck?" This 
would be rather wanting in euphony, to say the least of it ; 
but the word Baptist is not in the revised Scriptures put 
forth by the Bible Union at all. They have very correctly 
and faithfully translated the original into Immerser, and 
every scholar, if honest, will approve the translation. Then, 
will they give up the name Baptist? The late John Wal- 
ler, of Kentucky, saw this in prospect, while president of 
the Bible Union, and said: "If a faithful and pure ver- 
sion of God's holy word takes from me my denominational 
name, then I say let it go / let it go ! ! LET IT GO ! ! ! " 
Are his surviving brethren capable of rising with him 
above every earthly consideration to a reception of the 
name given in a pure version of God's word, to the exclu- 
sion of every thing else ? To this question time will fur- 
nish an answer. 

Another means of knowing persons and things is by 
their age. If you wish to find a man known to be forty 
years old, and you meet a lad of ten or twenty years old ; or 
a man whose whitened locks, furrowed cheeks, and bowed 
frame betoken that the weight of many years is upon him : 
in either case you will know that this is not the man you 
wish to see ; and this assurance will be made doubly sure 
if he wears not the proper name. The church of God, 
like every thing not eternal, has its age ; and as the age of 
a man is reckoned from the time of his birth, so the age of 
the. church is computed from the time of its organization. 
We have seen that this took place on the first Pentecost 
after the crucifixion of the Messiah ; any organization, 
therefore, which began at any other time, either before or 
since, is not the church of God. Every theory teaching 
that the church began at any other time, before or since, 
is wrong — surely wrong. Were I, or an angel from heaven, 
to-teach that the church of Jesus Christ began in eternity — 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 85 

in the days of Abraham — in the days of John the Baptist — 
it would be error, and unworthy of reception. 

Again : The record says that Jesus was born in Bethle- 
hem of Judea ; and had any one appeared at the time He 
came, claiming to be the Messiah, who had been born any- 
where else, he would have been known to be an impostor. 
Even so we have seen that the church of God was organ- 
ized in Jerusalem ; any organization, therefore, that began 
at any other place, is not the church of God. Should we 
find a church which began in eternity — in the garden of 
Eden — in Mesopotamia — at Sinai — in the Wilderness of 
Judea — at Augsburg — at Westminster — at Geneva — at 
Philadelphia — on Cumberland River — or at Bethany — we 
would know it could not be the church of God. 

Again : The church of God was " built upon the foundation 
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
chief corner-stone." Eph. ii : 20. Should we find a church 
claiming to be built upon the experience of uninspired men, 
however wise and good they may have been, it can not be 
the church of God. 

Again : The organic law of the United States is the con- 
stitution thereof. A government having any other organic 
law can not be the government of the United States of 
America. The organic law of the church of God is the 
New Covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus ; hence 
any church having any other organic law than this cove- 
nant can not be the church of God. The church that has 
the Mormon Bible as its organic law can not be the church 
of God. Why not ? Because its organic law is the pro- 
duction of men, and not the covenant dedicated with the 
blood of Jesus. Then, can a church be the church of God 
the organic law of which is the Westminster Confession of 
Faith, the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the Methodist Dis- 
16 



1 86 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

cipline, or any other human production ? Will the reader 
ponder well this question ? 

The church of God is entered by a birth of water and 
Spirit ; any church which admits to membership in any 
other way can not be the church of God. Hence a church 
that receives infants to membership can not be the church 
of God, because born of water they may be, but born of 
water and of the Spirit they can not be. 

All the subjects of the church of God know the Lord, 
from the least to the greatest of them : this being so, a 
church whose members are, in part, infants, can not be the 
church of God, because such can not know the Lord. 

This line of thought might be pursued much further ; 
but we have seen that the church of God was organized in 
Jerusalem, nowhere else — on the day of Pentecost, at no 
other time — wears a name honoring the Bridegroom, and 
no other — is built upon the foundation of apostles and 
prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone, and 
other foundation can no man lay — has for its organic law the 
covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus, nothing else, 
more or less — has only such members as have been born 
of water and of the Spirit, and know the Lord, from least 
to greatest. An organization, therefore, which bears all 
these marks of identity, may be the church of God ; 
none other can be. If such an organization can not be 
found, then the church of God has no existence on the 
earth. 

Suppose a man were to come into a community with the 
constitution and by-laws of the Good Templars, and by 
teaching its doctrines he were to make a number of prose- 
lytes to its principles, and were to initiate them according 
to its forms, and organize them, at a particular place, as a 
body built thereon, what would we call the organization ? 
A society of Good Templars. Very well. Another man 



THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH. 1 8? 

comes with the Mormon Bible, and by preaching its doc- 
trines makes proselytes to Mormonism, and organizes them 
upon the Mormon Bible, according to its provisions : what 
shall we call this organization ? A Mormon Church, most 
certainly. Very well. But suppose another man comes 
with the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and preaches its 
doctrines, makes proselytes, and organizes them according 
to its provisions, what shall we call this organization ? A 
Presbyterian Church. Very well. It would not be a Mor- 
mon Church, certainly ; and why not ? Because it is not 
organized upon the Mormon Bible or indoctrinated with 
its teaching. Well, another man comes, and having the 
Methodist Discipline, he teaches its doctrines, makes pros- 
elytes and organizes them upon it as a basis of future 
action : what shall we call the organization ? A Presby- 
terian Church ? No. Why not ? Because it has not been 
taught the doctrines of or organized upon the Presbyterian 
Confession of Faith. But it must be called a Methodist 
Church, because it has been taught the doctrines of that 
Discipline and organized upon it. 

Then suppose another man comes with the Word of God, 
and by preaching its doctrines he makes proselytes and 
organizes them according to its provisions, to keep the or- 
dinances therein inculcated, what shall we call this organ- 
ization ? Shall we call it a Presbyterian Church ? No ; 
the word of God, by which it has been created, says nothing 
about a church called by that name. Shall we call it a 
Methodist Church ? The word of God says nothing about 
a Methodist Church. Shall we call it a Baptist Church ? 
The word of God says not a word about a Baptist Church. 
Then, of what church does the word of God speak ?• It 
speaks of the church of God. Then, as the word of God is 
what was taught the proselytes, in accordance with which 
the organization was effected, and it speaks of the church 



1 88 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of God, is not this organization likely to adopt a name 
found in its organic law ? If so, we feel sure that we have 
given such marks as will enable us to find the church 
which has been the object of our search. Surely, it is 
worthy of all acceptation, and we will not seek another, 
but seek an entrance into this one. 



CHAPTER VIII. 



THE NEW BIRTH. 



WE have said that persons enter the church of God 
in one way, and in only one way. In this we are 
sustained by the positive statement of Jesus himself. In 
a conversation with Nicodemus on this subject, He said : 
4< Except a man be born again, he can not see the king- 
dom of God." John iii: 3. And in the 5th verse He said: 
" Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can 
not enter into the kingdom of God." By the phrase "king- 
dom of God," here, He meant the church of God, or system 
of government established by God's authority on the earth. 
To this, we suppose, all agree. When we speak of entering 
the kingdom of God, then, we do not mean heaven, the 
holiest of all into which Jesus, our adorable High Priest, 
hath for us entered, but the kingdom established on the 
earth, on the day of Pentecost. Into this kingdom or 
church he that is not born again can not enter. This king- 
dom is a system of government, and those who enter it 
must be subjects of government, capable of understanding 
and obeying its laws. Infants, idiots, and irresponsible 
persons are not such ; it was not, therefore, established for 
them, and their salvation is not suspended upon an en- 
trance into it. Jesus says : " Of such is the kingdom of 
heaven " — that is, of such as they are now, without being 
born again. 

Having seen that a man must be born again, in order to 



I90 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

enter the kingdom, and that it is the office of the new birth 
to introduce the party born into the kingdom, it follows 
that a more important subject never engaged the attention 
of man ; we will, therefore, examine it carefully, and some- 
what in detail, in the hope that the class of persons for 
whose benefit we write may ponder well what may be said, 
and that some good may be done in the name of Jesus. 

The first thing necessary to a birth is parentage. There 
must be a father and a mother, or there can be nothing 
born. Who, then, can be our spiritual parents? Paul 
salutes the brethren to whom he wrote, thus : " Grace, to 
you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus 
Christ." Rom. i : 7 ; 1 Cor. i : 3 ; 2 Cor. i : 2 ; I Thess. i : I ; 
2 Thess. i : 2 ; 1 Tim. i : 2 ; Philem. 3. In all these places, 
Paul, in the same words, recognizes God as our Father ; 
and Jesus taught His disciples to address God, in prayer, 
as " Our Father who art in heaven." Matt, vi : 9. John 
says : "Behold what manner of love the Father hath be- 
stowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of 
God!' And again : " Beloved, now are we the sons of 
God!' 1 John iii : 1, 2. Other scripture might be quoted, 
but these are sufficient to identify our Father with great 
clearness. Paul, in his allegory with reference to the two 
covenants, tells us that " Jerusalem which is above is free, 
which is the mother of us all." Gal. iv : 26. This heav- 
enly Jerusalem, answering in the allegory to the free wom- 
an, is our spiritual mother; hence, in the 31st verse, he 
says : " So, then, brethren, we are not children of the bond- 
woman, but of the free." But, before there can be a spir- 
itual birth, the subject must have been begotten. Man is 
begotten of his father and born of his mother, both physic- 
ally and spiritually. He is not born of his father, at all, 
either at the same time when born of the mother or at 
any other time. The father may have been in his grave 



THE NEW BIRTH. I9I 

long ere the child is born, and how he is born of his father 
when born of his mother, is not very clear to us. John 
says: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is be- 
gotten of God: and every one that loveth him that begat 
loveth him also that is begotten of him." I John v : i. 
Also, verse 18th, it is said : " We know that whosoever is 
begotten of God sinneth not ; but he that is begotten of 
God keepeth himself." In keeping with the Bible Union 
and Anderson's translations, we have exchanged the word 
born for begotten, in each of the verses quoted, and we ven- 
ture to state further that there is not a place in the New 
Testament where the words " born of God " occurs, that a 
faithful translation would not render " begotten of God." 
In no place will the Spirit's teaching, faithfully translated, 
represent us as born of God — born of our Father. Such a 
thought is absurd in the very nature of things ; and no 
one who understands the new birth, or the natural birth, 
from which the figure was drawn, will entertain such a 
thought or use such language. 

But to proceed. Peter speaks of his brethren as " being 
born [begotten] again, not of corruptible seed, but of in- 
corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth 
forever." i Pet. i : 23. Here we learn that the word of 
God is the spiritual seed with which persons are spiritually 
begotten. And in order that we may be begotten of this 
incorruptible seed, our Father has ordained that human 
agents shall preach it to the world. Hence, in this sense, 
Paul calls Timothy and Titus his sons in the common 
faith ; and also to the Corinthians, he said : " In Christ 
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." 1 Cor. 
iv : 15. Then, when Paul preached the word of God, gos- 
pel, or incorruptible seed, to the Corinthians, and they be- 
lieved and received it, they were begotten of God, and 
Paul speaks of them as having been begotten of him 



I92 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

through the gospel, because he was the person through 
whom God made known the gospel to them. Hence says 
James : " Of his own will begat he us with the word of 
truth." Jas. i: 18. The gospel is the power of God 
unto salvation only to those who believe it ; but "how shall 
they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and 
how shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. x: 14. 
So, then, " it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching 
to save them that believe." 1 Cor. i: 21. Then, when a 
man believes the gospel, is he not born again ? " Devils 
believe and tremble." Jas. ii : 19. They also acknowledge 
Jesus the Son of God. Mark iii : 11. Were they born 
again ? " Among the chief rulers also many believed on 
him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess 
him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue ; for 
they loved the praise of men more than the praise of 
God." John xii : 42, 43. There are now many such as 
these chief rulers were then; are they born again? If a 
man be born again when he first believes the gospel, when 
is he begotten, and where are the elements of birth — water 
and Spirit — of which Jesus said he should be born ? John 
says Jesus " came unto his own, and his own received him 
not : but to as many as received him, to them gave he 
power to become the sons of God, even to them that be- 
lieve on his name." John i: 11, 12. Jesus came to His 
own country, and His own people (the Jews) did not re- 
ceive Him, or believe on Him ; but to as many of them as 
did receive Him by believing on His name, He gave the 
power or privilege of becoming sons of God. Believing on 
His name, then, did not make them sons, but prepared 
them to become sons. 

When a man believes the gospel, and with meekness re- 
ceives it into a good and honest heart, he is then begotten 
of God, and is prepared to be bom. The vital principle is 



THE NEW BIRTH. I93 

then implanted in the heart ; but he is no more born again 
at that time than he was physically born the moment he 
was conceived. As it is not the office of a birth to give 
life, but to bring the subject to the enjoyment of life pre- 
viously possessed in a different state, so without being 
begotten by the Father through the gospel, and thus hav- 
ing the principle of life implanted in the heart, the subject 
born would be dead when born, if it were possible for him 
to be born at all. When he is spiritually begotten, he may 
avail himself of the means of God's appointment for a 
birth, and be born into the kingdom, or he may refuse 
them, as he may elect. In this particular there is no anal- 
ogy between a physical and a spiritual birth. In the for- 
mer we have no agency in being begotten or born, nor is 
either in the least under our control ; in the latter both 
are to a considerable extent, under the control of the sub- 
ject. He may (as many do) refuse to hear the gospel at 
all, or he may refuse to believe it after he has heard it. If 
he believes it not, his doom was pronounced by Jesus when 
He said, " He that believeth not shall be damned." He 
may also refuse to obey it after he has believed it ; if so, 
he " believes in vain," and his faith is dead, not having 
been made perfect by obedience. 

Faith causes us to love and fear God, and desire to do 
His will ; it also causes us to hate sin because it is con- 
trary to His will ; hence Peter, in speaking of the conver- 
sion of the Gentiles, said that God " put no difference be- 
tween us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Acts 
xv : 9. This, the effect of faith, is what is called a change 
of heart, and must precede the new birth. But a change of 
heart is one thing — the new birth a different thing. The 
conversion of Saul of Tarsus will make apparent the truth 
of this position. While he was " yet breathing out threat- 
enings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, he 
17 



194 TH1: GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to 
Damascus, to the synagogues, that if he found any of this 
way, whether they were men or women, he might bring 
them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he 
came near Damascus : and suddenly there shined round 
about him a light from heaven, and he fell to the earth, 
and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why perse- 
cutest thou me ? And he said, Who art thou, Lord ? And 
the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." Acts 
ix : 1-5. It will be seen that Saul set out on his journey 
with his heart filled with bitterness against the disciples, 
and thought he was doing right to persecute and punish 
them. Jesus convinced him by a miracle that He' was 
what He professed to be. Saul's faith was changed from 
believing that Jesus was an impostor to the belief of the 
truth that He was the Son of God. This change in his 
faith produced a corresponding change in his heart, and 
he abandoned his errand of persecution, and was willing 
to become a disciple himself. He was then begotten of 
God ; but was he born again ? If this was the birth, when 
and where were the elements of birth with which he then 
came in contact ? Three days hence he was born of water 
and of the Spirit, in obedience to a divine command given 
him by Ananias : " Arise and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." Acts xxii : 
16. His heart was changed by the way, but he was born 
again thr^e days afterward. 

Faith produces repentance, and repentance changes the 
practices of the subject — causes him to cease doing evil and 
commence doing right — but he is not yet born again. His 
heart may be as submissive to God's will as it can ever get 
to be ; yes, he may be a worshiper of God to the best of 
his knowledge, and still not.be born asrain. The new birth 
does not consist in a reformation of life. An examination 



THE NEW BIRTH. 1 95 

of the character of Cornelius will give proof of this : 
" There was a certain man in Cesarea called Cornelius, a 
centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout 
man, and one that feared God with all his house, which 
gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. 
He saw in a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of the 
day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto 
him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was 
afraid, and said, What is it, Lord ? And he said unto him, 
Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial 
before God." Acts x : 1-4. Here was a devoted, chari- 
table, praying, and God-fearing man, quite as good as the 
best of our day, as far as reformation of life can make 
them good, and yet he was not born again. But says an 
objector, " He was born again, for he saw an angel that told 
him so." Not exactly : he did see and converse with an 
angel that told him his prayers and his alms were come 
up for a memorial before God, and he told him more than 
this — " Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose sur- 
name is Peter ; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou 
and thy house shall be saved." Acts xi : 13, 14. Was he 
born again and still unsaved ? The promise " shall be 
saved " clearly shows that he was unsaved ; and not only so, 
but he was to hear words of Peter by which he was to be 
saved. Was he saved by the words before he heard them ? 
If so, why did not the angel shape the language thus : 
" who shall tell thee words by which you are or have been 
saved!' If he was at that time born again, it follows that 
there is no salvation in being born again, for it is as clear 
as language can make any thing, that he was not then 
saved, in the gospel sense of that word. If he was born 
again when the angel appeared to him, he was born again 
without ever having heard the gospel, and, therefore, 
without gospel faith. 



I96 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Peter, in alluding to this matter, said that "God made 
choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should 
hear the word of the gospel, and believe." Acts xv : 7. 
Then Cornelius had neither heard the gospel nor believed 
it until Peter preached it to him, and surely a cause must 
be desperate that could assume that he was born again 
prior to that time. Then as his conduct was as good be- 
fore birth as after it, it follows that the birth did not con- 
sist in a reformation of life in this case. 

A birth contemplates a change of state — a transition or 
passing from one state to another. A change of state, 
then, and the beginning of a new life, is the thought con- 
veyed by the expression " born again," and we have the same 
thought presented by Paul, in his epistles, in other figures, 
varied to suit the circumstances under which he wrote. 
He expresses it by the figure of marriage, Rom. vii : 4 ; 
by the figure of grafting, Rom. xi : 24 ; by the figure of 
adoption, Rom. viii : 15, Gal. iv : 5; and by the figure of 
translation from one government to another, Col. i: 13. 
If an individual be married to Christ, his state is changed — 
he is born again. If he be taken from the wild olive-tree 
and grafted into the tame olive-tree, or from the world and 
grafted into Christ, the true Vine, his state is changed — he 
is born again. If he be taken — as a child — from one family 
and adopted into another, the family of God, his state is 
changed — he is born again. If he renounce his allegiance 
to one government, the devil's, and be legally translated 
into another, the kingdom of God's dear Son, his state is 
changed — he is born again. We might amplify each of 
these figures of speech, and show the correctness of the 
position assumed ; but our space will only allow us to use 
a single one of the illustrations given: 

A gentleman visits and seeks the hand of a lady under 
unfavorable circumstances, and is rejected. There may be 



THE NEW BIRTH. 1 97 

a single cause or many causes co-operating to produce his 
rejection. She may be unfavorably impressed with his 
character, or she may worship at the shrine of another, 
whose heart she hopes to win, or both causes may co- 
operate in producing his rejection. Circumstances change, 
however, and she finds her first suitor an unworthy man, 
and she becomes disgusted by him. Meanwhile, she learns 
more of the character of the man she rejected, and finds 
him chaste in his conversation, courteous, polite, and ac- 
complished in manners — that a social, warm, and undis- 
sembling heart controls him — that he has a mind well 
stored with valuable information — that he has descended 
from a good family — and, above all, that he is possessed of 
inexhaustible wealth. A knowledge of these facts changes 
her heart, and she now adrhires and loves the man she 
once rejected. She receives him gladly, and is willing to 
become the sharer of his prosperity or adversity through 
life, but she is not yet his wife. Though her heart is 
changed, her state is not ; she was in the single or unmar- 
ried state, at first, and is so yet. The parents may consent, 
the license be secured, the proper officer be present for 
the solemnization of the nuptials, the supper prepared and 
the wedding furnished with guests, and still she is not 
married ; and were the process here arrested, she would 
not be entitled to the privileges of his house, to wear his 
name, or to inherit his estate. When she is married and 
her state legally changed, then, and not till then, is she 
entitled to all these privileges growing out of the new re- 
lation. Now for the application. The gospel is preached 
to the sinner — he is in love with the transient pleasures 
afforded in the service of the devil. The carpenter's Son, 
born in Bethlehem and cradled in a manger, has no charms 
for him. By-and-by he finds that the pleasures of sin are 
deceptive, and the devil, in whose service he delighted, has 



I90 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

nothing with which to reward him but misery and woe. 
Meanwhile he learns more of Him who proposes to save all 
who will come to God by Him. He finds Him so chaste in 
conversation, that guile is not found in His mouth ; so amia- 
ble in disposition, that when He is reviled He reviles not 
again, and yet so powerful, that the furious winds and bois- 
terous waves are calm at His bidding, the grave yields up the 
dead to live again, and devils tremble at His word ; the wa- 
ters are firm as a pavement beneath His majestic tread, 
God is His Father, and He the only Son and Heir to all 
things — He is chief among ten thousand and altogether 
lovely. With faith like this, he can not fail to feel grieved 
that he ever loved the devil or his service, because he is 
the enemy of Him whom he now loves supremely. Surely, 
his heart is now changed — is he born again ? If so, there 
is no fitness in the figure, for he is not married yet. 
Though his heart is changed, his state is not ; and if he 
stops at this point, he can no more claim the Christian 
name and character than can the unmarried woman claim 
the name and patrimony of him to whom she is espoused. 
But it is insisted that this change of heart is the new birth, 
and (strange enough, too) the same persons insist that we 
have no change of heart, and deny the importance of it, 
when, in reality, we have their change of heart and new 
birth, in our change of heart. 

We insist that we must not only love our betrothed, but 
we must be married to the bridegroom according to law, 
before we can claim the privileges of His bride. He will 
not permit us to live with Him in adultery if we were so 
disposed. A change of heart, then, is not a change of 
state ; it must precede the new birth, but it is not the new 
birth. 

The language " born again," was unique when used by 
Christ to Nicodemus. No inspired man had used such 



THE NEW BIRTH. 1 99 

language before : is there any reason for its use then ? 
The Jews believed that Jesus had come to re-establish the 
kingdom of David and literally sit on his throne on the 
earth ; hence when he entered Jerusalem, on one occasion, 
" they that went before, and they that followed, cried, say- 
ing, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
the Lord : Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, 
that cometh in the name of the Lord." Mark xi : 9, 10. 
And even His apostles did not understand the nature of 
His kingdom until after they received the Holy Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost, and were by it guided into all truth. 
" When they therefore came together, they asked of him, 
saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the 
kingdom to Israel ? " Acts i : 6. It is not unreasonable 
that Nicodemus had the same mistaken views of the king- 
dom, and he knew well that he was born into that king- 
dom, and had a right to citizenship in it by virtue of Abra- 
hamic parentage ; and being " a ruler of the Jews," " a master 
of Israel," he may have expected to be entitled to an office 
in Christ's kingdom on that account. Jesus corrects this 
mistake by telling him that the kingdom of God was not 
to be entered in that way ; but as a birth gave him entrance 
into that, he must be born again to enter this. 

There is much speculation about the import of this lan- 
guage ; but as Jesus attempted to explain the matter to 
Nicodemus, and then asked, "Art thou a master of Israel 
and knowest not these things ? " we are encouraged to ap- 
proach the examination of the subject in the belief that 
He intended to be understood, and, as "a teacher come 
from God," He was competent to make clear what He at- 
tempted to explain. Let us, then, take up the language in 
which the conversation is recorded, and see whether or 
not we may understand it : " There was a man of the 
Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews." So 



200 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

reads the first verse, and from it we learn that, at one time 
in the world's history, there lived a man whose name was 
Nicodemus ; that he belonged to the sect of the Jews' re- 
ligion called the Pharisees ; and that he was a distinguished 
personage or ruler among the Jews. 2d verse: "The 
same (Nicodemus) came to Jesus by night (not in day- 
light) and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a 
teacher come from God : for no man can do these miracles 
that thou doest, except God be with him." Here wo leirr. 
that Nicodemus was convinced by the miracles which Jesus 
did that He was really a teacher come from God. This is 
all plain ; let us try again. 3d verse : " Jesus answered 
and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a 
man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God." 
Here we learn, not hozv a man may be born again, but the 
indispensable necessity of being born again in order to see 
or enjoy the privileges and blessings of the kingdom of 
God. 4th verse : " Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a 
man be born when he is old ? can he enter the second time 
into his mother's womb, and be born ?" Here we find that 
Nicodemus knew nothing of but one birth, and this was a 
birth of the flesh, and that he could not understand how a 
man, when old, could be born in this way ; he therefore asks 
an explanation, " How can a man be born when he is old ?" 
Jesus attempts to tell him how it can be; hence the 5th 
verse : " Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, ex- 
cept a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he can not 
enter into the kingdom of God." Here we learn that the 
elements of birth are water and Spirit, and that a man 
must be born of both to be born again — not born of water 
and begotten by the Spirit, as some translations would indi- 
cate, but he must be born of both to be born at all. How 
is he to be born of water and of the Spirit ? One answers 
that he must get religion in the altar, grove, or elsewhere, 



THE NEW BIRTH. 201 

and being then baptized with the Spirit, he is born of the 
Spirit, and after a time he is baptized in water and is then 
born of water. Well, this theory makes baptism in water 
indispensable to entering the kingdom. Will the reader 
think of this ? It also makes two births where there 
should be but one. The language is born again, not again 
and again, or twice more — once at the altar and once at the 
creek. This is not all ; the order is transposed. Jesus 
said born of water and of the Spirit ; this theory says born 
of the Spirit and of water. It is out of joint at every an- 
gle. Another theory says that we are "born of water when 
we are born into the world, and born of the Spirit when 
we get religion." This will provoke a smile on the face of 
our readers ; but it is taught by men of lofty pretensions, 
and must be noticed, whether worthy of respect or not, be- 
cause it is regarded important by those who present it. It 
makes the answer of Jesus wholly inapplicable to the ques- 
tion asked by Nicodemus, who did not inquire how a child 
had been born into the world, but " How can a man be born 
when he is old? The answer was, not that you have once 
been born of water, and must be born again of the Spirit, 
but you must be born again. How ? Of water and of the 
Spirit. 

Another theory makes that part of the Saviour's lan- 
guage which applies to the Spirit apply to the belief of 
the gospel at the time the subject is spiritually begotten. 
While this theory may not be, practically, as mischievous 
as those already noticed, it is quite as unphilosophic and 
foreign from the truth as any one of them. It breaks up 
the order of the Lord's arrangement and takes the term 
Spirit, which comes after water, and places it in theory as 
far before water as faith precedes baptism. If this be the 
thought, it occurs to us that the Lord was unfortunate in 
the selection of terms in which to express it. It would 



202 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

have been as easy to have said, a man must be begotten 
by the Spirit and born of water, as to have said what He 
did say. But we are told that the Greek word genneethee, 
here rendered born, is elsewhere rendered begotten, and 
hence may have that meaning here. We grant that it 
is often so rendered; but should it be so rendered here? 
If so, it must mean begotten as to water as well as Spirit, 
and hence the process is all begetting, and there is no 
birth about it. Is any one prepared for this ? Will he 
render the passage, " begotten of water and of the Spirit ?" 
But may not the word genneetliee mean begotten as to 
Spirit and born as to water? It must be thus divided in 
meaning, to fit the theory ; and hence our neighbors may 
be right in saying that eis [for], in Acts ii : 38, means in 
order to as to repentance, but because of as to baptism. 
Such renderings are at war with all rules of exegesis on 
the subject. "The sense of a word can not be di- 
verse OR MULTIFORM AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE 

same place." Ernesti, p. 9. Again : " In no language 

CAN A WORD HAVE MORE THAN ONE LITERAL MEANING IN 

the same place." Emesti, p. 11. According to these 
rules, we may translate genneethee either begotten or bom, 
as the sense may require, but we can not translate it by 
both in one place ; yet we might as well so render it in 
words as in theory. Let those who do so, agree with our 
neighbors that baptidzontes means sprinkle, pour, and im- 
merse, in Matt, xxviii 119. If we may thus bifurcate the 
meaning of genneethee, in John iii : 5, and make it mean 
both begotten and born at the same time and in the same 
place, then we may as well have an end to all rules of in- 
terpretation, and no longer complain of others for doing 
that which we do ourselves. Surely, Jesus understood the 
figure He employed ; and if so, the theory is wrong. To 
be begotten of God is entirely a different thing from being 



THE NEW BIRTH. 203 

born of water and of the Spirit. He who believes the 
gospel, and is truly begotten of God, is not half born, but 
has the full measure of a birth of water and of the Spirit 
between him and the kingdom of God, and must be born 
of both to be born at all. Begetting must precede a 
birth, but it is no part of a birth. 

But as one error often begets others, so this theory has 
led to the notion that "regeneration and the new birth are 
identical." Generate means to beget ; re> as a prefix, means 
again. Hence regenerate must mean to beget again. Bom 
means brought forth, and born again is synonymous with 
reborn, hence, if language means any thing, to regenerate 
or beget again is one thing, and reborn or bom again is a 
different thing. Physically, a man is generated or begot- 
ten and subsequently born ; spiritually, he is regenerated 
(i. e., begotten again), and subsequently reborn (i. e., born 
again). Of course, we here use the term regeneration in its 
popular acceptation, in which, however, it never occurs in 
the New Testament. It occurs only in Matt, xix: 28, and 
Tit. iii : 5, both times with reference to the new creation 
or church established according to the provisions of the 
new covenant. 

But our question is yet unanswered, and having been 
gone from it so long, we must repeat it, lest it may have been 
forgotten : How is a man born of water and of the Spirit ? 
We answer that he is born of water as a means appointed 
by the Spirit for a birth. How is a man begotten of God ? 
Not literally. How then ? He is begotten with the word 
of truth, the gospel, as the means appointed for this pur- 
pose. Then why not a man be bom of the Spirit when bom 
of water as the means appointed by the Spirit for a birth ? 
Baptism is the act by which we are placed in and delivered 
from the water, according to the teaching of the Spirit, and 
thus we are born of water and of the Spirit ; hence we are 



204 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

"buried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen 
with him." Col. ii : 12. To be, if possible, more plain — 
to be born contemplates a delivery, a coming forth from 
one state into another Then were we to immerse a man 
in water, without faith, repentance, or any thing else (as we 
are often accused of doing), when delivered from the water 
he would be born of water, but not of water and of the 
Spirit, because the process was not in accordance with the 
teaching of the Spirit ; then it is equally clear that if born 
of water, as taught by the Spirit, he is born of water and 
of the Spirit. But we are told that the word water, in the 
sentence " water and of the Spirit," does not mean water; 
and one quibbler will say it means grace, another that it 
means Spirit ; and a third will say that he does not know 
what it means, but it can not mean water, for then he 
must be baptized or into the kingdom of God he can not 
go — and his theory tells him baptism is a non-essential. So 
the word of the Lord is made to bend to suit the theory 
instead of giving shape to the theory. But we are told 
that the Greek particle kai, here rendered and, is some- 
times rendered " even" and that this sentence should read 
thus : " Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit," 
etc. It is true that the word is sometimes so rendered, 
but can it be rendered * even" in this connection ? And 
is the primary meaning of the word, and the rules of 
translation give preference to the primary meaning, un- 
less the sense requires its removal. Does the sense 
require that and should give place to even, in the sentence 
before us ? Theories may require such a change, but the 
sense does not either require or allow it. The word water 
has no qualifying term, and wherever we find water, 
whether in the Jordan or elsewhere, we have the proper 
element. But not so of the Spirit. It is made definite, 
the Spirit — not spirit, a spirit, some spirit, or any spirit, 



THE NEW BIRTH. 2C>5 

but the Spirit. "Born of water and of the Spirit" — im- 
mersed in and born of water, according to the teaching of 
the Spirit. How perfect the sense ! But another tells us 
that the word water is exegetical of the word Spirit ; hence 
to be born of water and of the Spirit, is to be born of the 
Spirit like an overflow of water. Whoever saw an exege- 
sis given in advance of the word explained ? We feel 
ashamed that it is necessary to notice such quibbles as 
these. Suppose a man living at the time the Saviour was 
on the earth, who had witnessed the many immersions per- 
formed in those days, had heard Jesus say, " Except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God/' and he had no theory or preposses- 
sions to give shape to his conclusions, but had to form 
them only by the language used, would he conclude that 
the word water meant grace, Spirit, or any thing else but 
water? Would he not more likely conclude, with Wesley, 
Clark, and others, that it had reference to water baptism. 
Is there a man out of the lunatic asylum who can believe 
that any one of these quibbles would ever have been 
thought of had it not been necessary to devise some means 
to save some theory from being destroyed by the obvious 
meaning of the Saviour's language ? 

There were two questions asked by Nicodemus, in the 
4th verse : The first, " How can a man be born when he is 
old?" Jesus answered as we have seen in the 5th verse. 
The second question, " Can he enter the second time into 
his mother's womb and be born ?" shows that he had en- 
tirely mistaken the kind of birth required. This mistake 
Jesus corrects, in the 6th verse, by saying: " That which is 
born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is born of the 
Spirit is spirit" — as much as to say to him: "You are 
thinking of a birth of the flesh, and a second birth of this 
character would be indeed impossible. But I am speaking 



206 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of a moral transition of the spiritual or inner man. The 
man born again is the same physical man as he was before, 
but the temper and disposition of the inner man are not 
like they were before. ' That which is born of the Spirit 
is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born 
again.' Seeing your difficulty grows out of a failure to 
recognize the existence of an invisible or 'inner man' 
(Eph. iii : 16) dwelling in 'our earthly house of this taber- 
nacle' (2 Cor. v : 1), and which is the subject of the change 
produced by the new birth, I will use an illustration which 
will make plain the fact just stated, that 'that which is 
born of the Spirit is spirit,' hence the 8th verse, 'The 
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound 
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it 
goeth ; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.' " The 
mist and fog that men have thrown around this verse en- 
velop it in darkness thick as that with which God cursed 
the land of Egypt. And we are of the opinion that most 
of it has grown out of a failure to keep before the mind 
the difficulty under which Nicodemus was laboring, for 
the removal of which Jesus introduced the illustration, and 
failing to get the point in the comparison at the right 
place. We once listened to a very eloquent man through 
a labored effort to explain the new birth, at the close of 
which he said that this verse was designed to teach us that 
the new birth is incomprehensible to all finite minds. 
Others can see that it teaches the doctrine of abstract and 
mysterious spiritual operations ; others say that, as the 
wind blows down a large oak, and leaves others standing 
around it, so the Spirit is partial in its operations, convert- 
ing one or two out of the many who were with him or 
them at the mourner's bench. Jesus dfd not say, " So is the 
Spirit," or " So is the operation of the Spirit" — no such com- 
parison was made or intended. Others say that the Ian- 



THE NEW BIRTH. 207 

guage was addressed to Nicodemus, and is not applicable 
to us at all, because we can tell where the wind comes from 
and where it goes to. " He bringeth the wind out of his 
treasure." Ps. cxxxv : 7. " Who hath gathered the wind 
in his fist." Prov. xxx : 4. And what is gained by these 
quotations ? Where is God's treasure from whence the 
wind comes ? and where is His fist in which it is gath- 
ered? But suppose we can tell where the wind comes 
from and goes to, what light has been thrown on the new 
birth by the discovery ? We confess ourself unable to see 
any at all. If we go back to the 4th verse and see the 
difficulty in the mind of Nicodemus to be a second birth 
of the flesh, then come to the correction given to this mis- 
take in the 6th verse — " That which is born of the Spirit is 
spirit" — and then regard the 8th verse as an illustration 
used to teach the existence of an invisible principle or 
spiritual man, which is changed by the new birth, then, it 
seems to us, there need be no difficulty in understanding 
the matter. We have seen many translations of this verse, 
quite a number of which we have before us at this writing ; 
and it is worthy of note that, whether the Greek pneuma 
be rendered wind or spirit, the illustrative qualities of the 
figure are still the same : they are both invisible — recog- 
nized by sound and not by sight. " So is every one that is 
born of the Spirit" — it being spirit that is so born. 

While the kingdom was yet in prospect, Jesus taught the 
people by parables and figures ; but after its establishment, 
figures gave place to facts, commands, and promises. Jesus 
commissioned his apostles to preach the gospel to every 
creature, promising salvation to those who would believe 
and obey it. He also promised them the Holy Spirit to 
guide them into all truth, and enable them to unerringly 
perform the work He had assigned them. When it came, 
they began to preach as it inspired them — persons were 



208 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

cut to the heart and made to cry out, " Men and brethren, 
what shall we do ?" Peter did not tell them to be born 
again, because the time for figures had passed ; he there- 
fore said to them : " Repent, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." 
Acts ii : 38. Thus he told them plainly, without a figure, 
to do that which would translate them into the kingdom 
of God's dear Son, and produce that change of state indi- 
cated by the figurative language of Jesus as used in the 
conversation with Nicodemus when He said : " Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter 
into the kingdom of God." When Peter thus addressed 
them, " they that gladly received his word were baptized ; 
and the same day there were added unto them about three 
thousand souls." Now, are they born again ? Surely, they 
are. When were they born again ? Just when they did 
what Peter commanded them to do. Then, if they were 
born again when they were baptized in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, will you not be born again 
when you do as they did ? and if it took this to introduce 
them into the kingdom of God then, will any thing less 
do you now ? 



CHAPTER IX. 

FAITH. 

WE hope that the reader has carefully studied the 
lessons already given, and that he has not for- 
gotten the marks on the guide-posts along the road to 
the Tree of Life. But as we started far back in the 
brush, bogs, muck, and mire of Calvinism, our journey 
thence to citizenship in the kingdom of God has been 
necessarily a long one, and made rapidly ; it may not be 
amiss for us to go back and familiarize ourselves a little 
with the scenery along the road. 

We have seen that the destiny of each individual was 
not unalterably fixed in heaven or hell before time began, 
and that God is no respecter of persons, but in every 
nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is 
accepted with Him ; and hence every one may make his 
calling and election sure — that you did not enter the 
world laden with hereditary depravity, by reason of which 
you are wholly opposed to all good, and irresistibly in- 
clined to all evil, and unable to do any thing commanded 
you of God ; but, on the contrary, you are quite compe- 
tent to fear God and keep His commandments, and in 
doing so you will have discharged your whole duty. •We 
have further seen that God has one kingdom, body, or 
church, on the earth, and only one ; that it was set up on 
the day of Pentecost, in Jerusalem, by the authority of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, through the agency of the apos- 
18 (209) 



210 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ties, as guided by the Holy Spirit ; and may be as surely 
known and identified, as men and things may be known 
by the features peculiar to them. And men must enter 
it by being born of water and of the Spirit ; and thus, as 
individuals, they become branches of Christ, the true 
Vine, or members of his body, the church ; but to speak 
of organizations as branches of the church of God, is 
nothing less than the confused dialect of Babylon. We 
have further seen that before we can be born again, we must 
have been begotten with the word of God, as the incor- 
ruptible seed necessary to the accomplishment of this 
end, and that this Word must be preached, heard, and 
believed, in order to the production of that change of 
heart, and reformation of life, which must necessarily 
precede the new birth. 

As faith is the grand mainspring which propels the 
human machinery in all acceptable obedience to God, we 
propose to pause here while we open our Bibles and 
examine it in the light of inspiration. We think it 
likely that more has been said and written on the sub- 
ject of faith than on any other subject connected with 
theology ; and if every trace of every thing that unin- 
spired men have spoken and written could be blotted out 
of human memory, we are not sure that the world would 
be greatly injured by the sacrifice. Indeed, it seems to 
us that the greatest labor on the part of those who 
would understand the subject, is to disentangle it from 
the speculations of men with regard to it. What, then, 
is faith ? whence cometh it ? and what is its office in the 
pld)i of salvation ? 

What is Faith? 

Many persons speak of it as some indescribable gift 
infused into the heart by God, when they neither ex- 



FAITH. 211 

pected nor desired it ; while others seem to think it a 
gift, only to be obtained after hours, perhaps days, weeks, 
months, or even years, spent at the mourner's bench, or 
elsewhere, in imploring God to bestow it upon them. 
Paul says: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, 
the evidence of things not seen." Heb. xi : I. This 
verse is perhaps better rendered by Anderson, thus : 
" Faith is a sure confidence with respect to things hoped 
for, a firm persuasion with respect to things not seen." 
Christianity is a system of faith, and is not susceptible 
of demonstration like a problem in mathematics. We do 
not know that there is such a place as heaven, like we 
know that there is such a place as Nashville ; because the 
latter we have seen, the former we have not seen. We 
have a sure confidence with respect to it — a firm persua- 
sion that it exists, because we believe the testimony con- 
cerning it, " For we walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Cor. 
v : 7. Faith, then, may be defined as a firm, unshaken 
confidence, conviction, or belief in the truth of a proposition, 
based upon testimony concerning it. The order is : Fact, 
Testimony, FAITH. First, a fact must exist, then it 
must be revealed with testimony sufficiently strong to 
establish its truth, then the confidence in, or firm belief 
of this testimony is faith. In support of this position, it 
may be well to make a quotation or two. 

When Jesus saw the centurion's confidence that a word 
from the Master would heal his servant, He said to them 
following Him, "I have not found so great faith, no. net 
in Israel," and then said to the centurion, "As thou hast 
believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was 
healed in the self-same hour." Matt, viii : 10, 13. Here 
Jesus used the words faith and belief interchangeably, 
showing clearly that the centurion's belief was his faith. 

Again : Paul tells us that " without faith it is im- 



212 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

possible to please God, for he that cometh to God must 
believe that he is." Heb. xi : 6. Here the necessity of 
belief is given as a reason why persons can not please 
God without faith ; and the fact that we can not please 
God without faith, is as good a reason why we must be- 
lieve ; therefore, with Paul, faith and belief were synony- 
mous terms. 

Once more : " Abraham believed God, and it was ac- 
counted to him for righteousness." Rom. iv : 3. What 
was accounted to Abraham for righteousness? Belief; 
and that this belief was faith is seen in the 9th verse 
in which it is said, " Faith was reckoned to Abraham for 
righteousness." Surely, nothing could be more clear than 
that believing God constituted Abraham's faith. Why, 
then, was not faith used in the 3d verse in place of the 
word believed? Because the word faith is always used as 
a noun, and never as a verb ; nor is there any power in 
the English language to convert it into a verb. We can 
not say, " Abraham faithed God," but we can say, " Abra- 
ham believed God, and his faith was accounted to him for 
righteousness." We can not say, "Faith on the Lord 
Jesus Christ," but we can say, " Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." We can not say, 
4< He that faitheth not shall be damned," but we can say, 
" He that believeth not shall be damned." We can not 
say, " If thou faithest with all thy heart, thou mayest," 
but we can say, " If thou believest with all thy" heart, 
thou mayest." Nor can we convert the word faith into 
a participle, and say, " That faithing ye might have life 
through his name," but we can say, "That believing ye 
might have life through his name." When the thought 
is expressed in the shape of a command to be obeyed, or 
as having been obeyed, or as a condition to be complied 
with as an act of the mind precedent to further obedience 



FAITH 213 

to the gospel, the style is : believe, believeth, believest, be- 
lieved, believing, etc.; but when used as a noun, to indicate 
the conviction which exists in the mind, with one single 
exception (2 Thess. ii : 13), the word faith is always used. 
These facts will be further developed as we proceed with 
the examination of our second question, viz. : 

How does Faith Come ? 

After asking, " How can they call upon him in whom 
they have not believed ? and how shall they believe in 
him of whom they have not heard ? and how shall they 
hear without a preacher?" (Rom. x: 14,) intending, 
doubtless, to make the impression that they could do 
neither, and clearly showing; that after the facts of the 
gospel exist, the order is : preaching, hearing, BE- 
LIEVING, Paul remarks, " So then faith cometh by 
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Rom. x: 17. 
Hence, after Jesus had taught the grand facts of the gos- 
pel to the apostles, His first charge to them was, 
"Preach the gospel to every creature." Mark xvi : 16. 
And why ? Certainly, that those interested might hear, 
believe, and OBEY it. In His most solemn prayer to 
His Father He said, " Neither pray I for these alone, 
but for them also who shall believe on me through their 
word." John xvii : 20. Observe, he prayed for them 
who should believe on him through the words of the 
apostles ; and as He required them to preach the gos- 
pel, the people were expected to believe in Him by hear- 
ing the gospel which the apostles were required to 
preach. In keeping with this arrangement, Peter 
preached to the Pentecostians, and "when they heard 
this they were pricked in their heart." Acts ii : 37. So 
their faith came by hearing, and they were of the class of 
believers for .whom Jesus prayed. The faith of the Gen- 



214 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tiles, too, came in the same way ; for Peter said, 
" Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made 
choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should 
hear the word of the gospel, and believe!' Acts xv : 7. 
Luke further tells us that "many of the Corinthians 
hearing believed, and were baptized." Acts xviii : 8. 
" It came to pass in Iconium, that they [Paul and Barna- 
bas] went together into the synagogue of the Jews, and 
so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and 
also of the Greeks believed." Acts xiv : i. The Sa- 
maritans also " believed Philip preaching the things con- 
cerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus 
Christ, and were baptized, both men and women." Acts 
viii: 12. Many other examples might be given illustra- 
tive of the same fact ; indeed, there is not a single ex- 
ample on record where faith came not in this way. 

We once saw an educated mute, who was quite an in- 
telligent member of the church of God. We wrote on a 
slip of paper and handed him the following question : 
" Sir : Paul says ' faith comes by hearing ; ' as you can 
not hear, how came your faith ? " He was a good pen- 
man, and quickly wrote the following answer: "Though 
I can not hear, thank God I can read. I heard the gos- 
pel like I heard the question you asked me. John says : 
' Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of 
his disciples which are not written in this book ; but 
these are written that ye might believe that yesns is the 
Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have 
life through his name.' John xx : 30, 31. I read, un- 
derstood, believed, and obeyed what was written!' We 
were pleased with his answer, for it evinced that he knew 
much more about the faith required by the gospel than 
many who have ears to near but seem not to understand 
what faith is, or how it comes. 



FAITH. 215 

We have often heard persons praying most earnestly 
to God to give them faith, and the preachers exhorting 
them to believe, without presenting one word of testi- 
mony to produce faith, as though their loud vociferations 
could scare them into the exercise of faith, or awaken 
their God (who, like Baal, was either asleep or on a jour- 
ney), that He might hear and answer their prayers for 
faith. Such persons always have the deepest sympathy 
of our heart ; hence, in great kindness, we say to them, 
" Come, now, and let us reason together." 

When they ask for faith, they have not faith, for surely 
they would not so earnestly beg for that which they already 
have. James says : " Let him ask in faith, nothing waver- 
ing, for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven 
by the wind and tossed ; let not that man think that he 
shall receive any thing of the Lord." Jas. i : 6, 7. Now, 
as he asks for faith, and would not knowingly ask for that 
which he has, it follows that he has not faith, and therefore 
can not ask in faith ; therefore let him not think that he 
will receive any thing of the Lord, or that the Lord will 
give him the faith for which he asks. Again : " Whatso- 
ever is not of faith is sin." Rom. xiv : 23. Then, as they 
pray for faith, and therefore have not faith, their prayers 
can not be of faith ; and as whatsoever is not of faith is 
sin, it follows that all such prayers are sin. Once more : 
" Without faith it is impossible to please God." Heb. xi : 6. 
As prayers for faith are not made in faith, but without faith, 
and as without faith it is impossible to please God, there- 
fore such prayers are not pleasing to God. And as they 
are sinful, and therefore not pleasing to God, and nothing 
can be received in answer to them, it surely would be bet- 
ter not to make them. 

But an objector says : "It is certainly legitimate to ask 
God, in prayer, for that which He has promised to give us ; 



2l6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

and the Bible says faith is the gift of God ; therefore we 
may ask Him for it." Most assuredly we may pray to God 
for that which He has promised to give us ; but do the 
Scriptures teach that He has promised to give faith to 
those who are without it ? Before we proceed to examine 
the proofs relied on to support the theory, we beg per- 
mission to remark to our contemporaries that consist- 
ency looks quite as well in them as in us, and the demand 
to reconcile scriptures seemingly at war with positions 
taken should extend to them as well as to us. This is not 
always remembered. Every knotty quotation is reserved 
for us to explain, every seeming contradiction is zealously 
sought after and brought forward for us to harmonize, and 
every quibble that can be thought of is expected to be at- 
tended to by us, while the objector's theory may be flatly 
contradicted by the plainest teaching of inspiration, and no 
attempt is made by him to explain or harmonize any 
thing. 

We are tired of this. We want to see an objector be a 
man, and dig up the briers, thistles, and thorns from his 
own garden before he points at the weeds and grass in ours. 
Come, then : what do you think of the quotations already 
made from Jas. i : 6, 7, Rom. xiv : 23, and Heb. xi: 6, and 
our reasonings thereon ? And when you shall have har- 
monized these with the right of such as have no faith to 
pray/<?r faith (and many others which you can easily find), 
then try the following : " He that believeth not shall be 
damned." Mark xvi : 16. Will God punish men in hell 
forever for not believing, when He has to give them faith ? 
While you smooth these kinks out of the theory that faith 
is a direct gift from God to the sinner, we will see whether 
or not your proofs contradict us. 

The first passage we will examine may be found in 1 
Cor. xii : 8-10, where Paul, in speaking of the miraculous 



FAITH. 217 

gifts of the Spirit, says : " For to one is given by the Spirit 
the word of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by 
the same Spirit ; to another faith by the same Spirit ; to 
another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit ; to another 
the working of miracles ; to another prophecy ; to another 
discerning of Spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; 
to another the interpretation of tongues." We have given 
the sentence with reference to faith with its context, and 
the connection most clearly shows that the faith here enu- 
merated among the gifts of the Spirit is not the faith for 
which the alien is taught to pray. If he may pray for faith 
because it is here said to be the gift of the Spirit, then he 
may pray for the power to work miracles, prophesy, speak 
with tongues, and interpret tongues, for they are all in the 
same connection and by the same authority said to be gifts 
of the same Spirit. Surely, no one will say that this faith, 
or any of these gifts, is to be given to the unconverted alien, 
in answer to prayer, or in any other way. There was a faith 
of which Jesus said : " If ye have faith as a grain of mustard 
seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yon- 
der place ; and it shall remove : and nothing shall be impos- 
sible unto you." Matt, xvii : 20. And again : " If ye had 
faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this syc- 
amine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou 
planted in the sea ; and it should obey you." Luke xvii : 6. 
We hear Paul also calling Titus his "son after the common 
faith!' Tit. i : 4. Paul had preached the gospel to Titus, 
and when he believed it he was begotten by the incorrupt- 
ible seed, or word of God ; and this belief of the gospel 
Paul calls the common faith, because this is the faith com- 
mon to. all God's people. But the word common implies 
uncommon ; hence, as Paul spake of the common faith, 
he did it in contrast with the uncommon or miraculous 
faith given by the Spirit. Does any one think he has it 
19 



2l8» THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

now ? Then let him remove the mountain or tree by his 
word, and thereby establish his claim. 

The next and last passage to be examined is in the fol- 
lowing words : " For by grace are ye saved through faith ; 
and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God." Eph. 
ii : 8. Is faith the thing here said to be the gift of God ? 
The demonstrative that never refers to the thing nearest 
us or last spoken of. For such purpose this is preferred. 
That, as a demonstrative, refers to the thing farther off or 
previously spoken off; hence, in this sentence, it must 
refer to something behind faith. We would paraphrase 
the sentence thus : " By grace are ye saved through faith ; 
and that salvation is not of yourselves : it is the gift of 
God." This is the obvious import of the passage. 

But we are told that faith is the gift of God because He 
has given us the testimony which produces it. To this 
we do not greatly object ; bu f s'Ul there can be no pro- 
priety in praying for it, nor ca A i their prayers avail any 
thing if they do pray. They have the testimony : why not 
believe it ? Is God to give them more testimony ? If they 
believe all the testimony, they have faith enough and need 
not pray for more. Faith is produced by testimony, and 
as far as testimony goes, faith may go ; but where the tes- 
timony stops, faith must and will stop. The testimony 
concerning Jesus telfs us that He was born of Mary in 
Bethlehem — was baptized by John in Jordan, and com- 
menced His ministry in the hill country of Galilee — was 
crucified on Calvary, and was buried in Joseph's new 
tomb. Now, suppose the testimony had stopped at this 
point, how much faith would any person have had to-day 
in His resurrection, asce?ision f and glorification ? Just 
none at all. As far as testimony goes, faith may go, but 
no further ; all beyond is mere speculative opinion. Our 
faith may be strengthened or weakened by increasing or 



FAITH. 219 

weakening the testimony. We have faith in the testimony 
of men, and we have faith in the testimony of God, but 
our faith in the testimony of God is as much stronger 
than our faith in the testimony of men as we regard God 
superior to man and His testimony more reliable than 
that of man. This difference — no more, no less. " If we 
receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." 
1 John v : 9. " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, 
neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord ; for as the 
heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher 
than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." 
Isa. lv : 8, 9. 

But we are told that the belief of testimony is merely 
historic faith. And what kind, of faith is not historic faith ? 
If by historic faith is meant a belief in the historic account 
of Jesus, heaven, hell, salvation, and condemnation given 
in the word of Truth, then we hesitate not to admit that we 
have that kind of faith, and know of no other. But you 
tell us you want divine faith. If by divine faith you mean 
that which is predicated upon divine testimony, then we 
have divine faith, and want no other. But you want evan- 
gelical faith. And what sort of faith is that ? Is it to be- 
lieve all that the evangelists have spoken and written? If 
so, we have evangelical faith. But you want saving faith. 
What is meant by saving faith ? If it is, with all the pow- 
ers of the soul, to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of 
God and our Saviour, then we have saving faith. But you 
want the faith of credence. And what do you mean by 
this ? Is it to give full credit to all the divine testimony ? 
Then we have the faith of credence. But you want the 
faith of reliance. And what kind of faith is this ? Is it 
to rely, with full confidence, on the testimony of inspira- 
tion ? Then we have the faith of reliance. But you want 
a trusting faith. Do you mean by this a faith which en- 



220 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ables you to trust in Jesus Christ and the efficacy of His 
blood for salvation ? Then this is the kind of faith we 
have, and want no other. Then of what use are all these 
qualifying terms as applied to faith ? They serve only to 
becloud the subject, and never can do any good. We have 
heard persons taught that they must believe that God had 
pardoned them, and whenever they would believe this they 
would realize that it was so. It is not strange that per- 
sons feel like they are pardoned when they believe that 
God has pardoned them ; but if we must believe that we 
are pardoned in order to be pardoned, then we confess, 
frankly, that we neither have nor want that kind of faith. 
Are we to believe that there are as many different kinds 
of faith as there are qualifying terms here used ? Paul 
said, " There is one Lord and one faith!' Eph. iv : 5. 
When you believe all that God has said, through inspired 
men, to the world, and believe it because God has said it, 
you have all the faith which mortals can have or God re- 
quires of them. Pollok has well said : 

" Faith was bewildered much by men who meant 
. To make it clear, so simple in itself; 
A thought so rudimental and so plain, 
That none by comment could it plainer make. 
All faith was one. In object, not in kind, 
The difference lay. The faith that saved a soul, 
And that which in the common truth believed, 
In essence were the same. Hear, then, what faith, 
True Christian faith, which brought salvation was — 
Belief in all that God revealed to i?ien ; 
Observe, in all that God revealed to men, 
In all He promised, threatened, commanded, said, 
Without exception, and without a doubt." 

What is the Office of Faith ? 

Having seen what faith is and how it comes, we are now 
prepared to inquire what it does. And we may as well say 



FAITH. 221 

at once that it induces the performance of every act of accept- 
able obedience to God — every one. We are lost in attempting 
to find any thing done in hearty obedience to God that is 
not, either directly or indirectly, the result of faith. Is your 
heart subdued to the will of God, and your affections and 
passions all mellowed by love, that God-like principle that 
enables you to love your enemies, and do good to and pray 
for them that persecute and evilly treat you ? This is the 
work of faith. Are you heartily sorry for all your past 
sins and determined to forsake them and walk humbly and 
uprightly henceforth ? These are the results of the subju- 
gation of your heart to the will of God by faith. Have 
you confessed with the mouth the Lord Jesus before men, 
that He may confess you before His Father and the holy 
angels ? Then you have but confessed with the mouth what 
the heart believed. Have you been buried with Christ in 
baptism and arisen to walk in newness of life ? If so, Jesus, 
in the commission which authorized the performance of 
this act, associated it with faith, saying, " He that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved ;" and Philip made the 
eunuch's faith an indispensable prerequisite to his baptism, 
saying, " If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest." 
And, as without faith it is impossible to please God, had 
he baptized him without faith, it would not have been pleas- 
ing to God; and hence were you to be baptized without 
faith, it would not be a service well pleasing to Him. Do 
you, as Christians, love mercy, deal justly, walk humbly 
and uprightly before God ? If so, it is all the result of 
faith ; for the Christian lives by faith, walks by faith, and 
dies in faith. But we are not yet ready to develop the life 
of the Christian ; hence we must go back and assist the 
alien through that change in the affections of the 
heart which we have seen to be the first result of faith. 
Paul says : " Ye have obeyed from the heart that form 



222 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of doctrine which was delivered you ; being then made 
free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness." 
Rom. vi : 17, 18. By this we learn that the obedience 
which freed the Romans from sin ^2^, from the heart ; and 
we may safely affirm that all acceptable obedience must 
come from a heart sincerely desirous to honor God's au- 
thority. All else is downright mockery. But no alien can 
obey from the heart without a changed heart ; hence it may 
be well to inquire what a change of heart is, and how it is 
brought about. In order to acquire any thing like a satis- 
factory knowledge of the subject, it is important to know 
what the spiritual heart is, and then we may better under- 
stand how and when it is changed. As the physical heart 
is the center of the physical circulation, from whence 
passes the vital current, giving life and nutriment to all 
parts of the body, so the mind oi man is the great center 
of all spiritual impressions and emotions, and is therefore 
called the heart — if you please, the spiritual heart. If in 
this we are not mistaken, then all reference of spiritual 
emotions and changes to the physical heart is out of place. 
Let us see how this is. " And God saw that the wicked- 
ness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagi- 
nation of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continu- 
ally." Gen. vi : 5. It can not require an argument to show 
that thoughts originate in the mind, which is here denom- 
inated the heart. Solomon says : " The heart knoweth his 
own bitterness." Prov. xiv: 10. "The heart of the right- 
eous studieth to answer." Prov. xv : 28. As study is the 
work of the mind, and as the mind is the store-house of all 
knowledge, we can not be at a loss to know that it was the 
mind which Solomon called the heart. " Jesus perceiving 
the thought of their heart." Luke ix : 47. As thoughts 
proceed from the mind, it is evidently what Jesus here calls 
the heart. " The heart also of the rash shall understand 



FAITH. 223 

knowledge." Isa. xxxii : 4. Here it is quite clear that the 
prophet used the term heart with reference to the mind. 
With a single quotation from an apostle, we must close our 
proof on this subject: "With the heart man believeth 
unto righteousness." Rom. x : 10. Until it can be shown 
that the physical heart can believe and appreciate testi- 
mony, it is unnecessary to make an argument to show that 
Paul here used the word heart as equivalent to the mind. 
Thus we see that God, Jesus, Solomon, Isaiah, and Paul 
used the term heart with reference to the mind or intellect, 
with all its faculties, with which we think, understand, 
feel, and receive impressions. We may cultivate and de- 
velop the faculties of the mind so as to enlarge our pow- 
ers of thought and capabilities of acquiring and retaining 
knowledge, by making impressions on it through the 
senses ; but this is not what is meant by the phrase 
"change of heart," as used by theologians with reference 
to conversion. And it may be well to remark that we use 
the phrase "change of heart" byway of accommodation to 
the parlance of our times, and not because we find such 
language in the Bible. It is not there. It is true that, in 
Dan. iv : 16, it is said of Nebuchadnezzar: " Let his heart 
be changed from man's and let a beast's heart be given 
him ;" but this had no reference to conversion to Chris- 
tianity. Indeed, while we confine ourselves strictly to the 
literal signification of the terms we are by no means sure 
that such a thing as a change of heart is at all possible. 
We may change the affections and purposes of the heart 
or mind, but how we may change the heart or mind itself, 
is not very clear to us. The affections and purposes of 
the heart are no more the heart than the fruit of a tree is 
the tree. In the Scriptures, however, the term heart is 
sometimes used in this sense — i. e., to indicate the affec- 
tions and purposes of the mind ; and as these may be 



224 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

changed, it is with reference to them that we use the 
phrase " change of heart." When we speak of a change of 
heart, then, we mean a cliange of the affections and purposes 
of the heart. Nothing more — nothing less. 

Many persons are prating about a "change of heart," 
who are wholly destitute of any just conceptions of what 
it is, or how it is produced. One of them will tell you 
that " It is the work of grace in the heart," while another 
will tell you that "It is the new birth," " Getting religion," 
"Remission of sins," "Salvation from sin," "Justifica- 
tion," etc. ; and they will tell you that " It was brought 
about by the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; " or at least 
they will insist that " It was by the operation of the Holy 
Ghost." Hence the importance of knowing what a 
change of heart is, that we may know when we have it, 
if not how it was brought about. We have often seen 
persons, as truly penitent as they were capable, of being, 
who were still praying for a change of heart, while their 
hearts were wilted into perfect submission to the will of 
God as far as they knew it. Did they not love God, and 
fear Him with all the powers of the mind? Yes. Then 
if their hearts were changed they must cease to love and 
fear God, and might love the devil and his service. Did 
they not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and 
the Saviour of sinners ? Yes ; if not, they would not have 
gone to the mourner's bench, for it was to obtain salva- 
tion through Him that they went there. Change their 
hearts from this, and it is bound to land them in infidelity 
or unbelief, for this is the opposite of belief in Jesus. Is 
he not heartily sorry for sins ? Then change his heart, 
and he is not sorry. Is he not willing and determined to 
forsake them ? Then change his heart, and he is deter- 
mined to practice them. Does he not love the company 
and society of the people of God? Then change his 



FAITH. 225 

heart, and he loves the company and association of the 
vicious and wicked. But you ask why was he not par- 
doned if his heart was submissive to the will of God ? 
Simply because he had not complied with the conditions 
upon which God had offered him pardon. And the failure, 
upon his part, was not because of any perversity of heart 
in him, but because his instructors had failed to teach him 
what those conditions are. For want of proper instruc- 
tions, he must go home with his head bowed down as a 
bulrush, and continue to pray for a change of heart 
through long -weeks, months, years, or perhaps through 
life, because he can not work himself up to a sufficient de- 
gree of excitement to believe his heart changed in some 
supernatural way. This is the literal meaning of it. And 
what is the result? If he is of Calvinistic persuasions, 
he may conclude that he is not one of the elect, and in an 
effort to drown his emotions he may go back into the prac- 
tice of wickedness, and perhaps become tenfold worse 
than before ; or he may plunge into the dark pool of infi- 
delity, and conclude that there is no truth in any thing. 
We very recently had a conversation with a very intelli- 
gent infidel manufactured just in this way. 

When a man's affections are won from sin to holiness, 
a love of Satan to God, and all the purposes of his heart 
are submissive to the will of God as far as he knows it, he 
has all the change of heart that God requires of him prior 
to obedience. And we propose, now, to examine a few 
passages of Scripture to see how this change is produced, 
to which we invite the very careful attention of those who 
would understand the subject: "And on this manner did 
Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment : 
so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel." 2 
Sam. xv : 6. How did Absalom steal the hearts of the 
people ? Go back a few verses, and you will find that he 



226 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

placed himself by the gate, and when any one who had a 
controversy came to present his grievance to the king, he 
would say to him : " Thy matters are good and right, but 
there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee. Oh, 
that I were made judge in the land, that every man that 
hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would 
do him justice. And it was so, that when any man came 
nigh to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand 
and took him and kissed him." Thus it was that he stole 
their hearts ; that is, he won their affections. Hence, the 
term heart is here used to indicate the affections of the 
mind, and not the heart itself; and thus we see what is 
meant by a change of heart. The affections of the people 
were won from the king and to Absalom ; and it was done 
by making them believe that the king was indifferent to 
their interests, and that Absalom was their friend, and 
thus their faith changed their hearts. 

What a vast cloud is removed from the subject by taking 
this view of it ! From this stand-point we can see a beauty 
and fitness in the language of Peter to his brethren, when 
he said : " Men and brethren, ye know how that a good 
while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles 
by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and be- 
lieve. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them 
witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto 
us ; and put no difference between us and them, purifying 
their hearts by faith." Acts xv : 7-9. Thus we see that, 
though God gave the Gentiles the Holy Ghost, it was not 
to purify their hearts, for He did this work by faith. And 
as He put no difference between the Gentiles and Jews in 
this respect, it follows that He purified the hearts of the 
Jews by faith. Then let us go to Jerusalem on the day 
of Pentecost, when and where the hearts of three thou- 
sand were purified in one day, and see if we can find how 



FAITH. 227 

it was done. And first we premise by saying that it was 
not done by the Holy Ghost, for Jesus said they [the 
world] could not receive it, and it was poured out upon the 
disciples before the multitude came together. When the 
apostles were filled with it, and under its influence began 
to speak forth in different languages, the wonderful works 
of God, the people assembled, with hearts full of bitter- 
ness, to hear what was being said. They believed Jesus 
an impostor, and that they did right in putting Him to 
death ; and that the apostles were a drunken rabble. 
Thus we see that their wicked feelings were the result of 
improper faith, and to change their feelings it was neces- 
sary to correct their faith, which produced the feelings. 
And as faith is dependent upon testimony, it was neces- 
sary, in order to correct their faith, to present such testi- 
mony as would convince them that Jesus was not an im- 
postor, as they had believed, but was what He professed to 
be — the Son of God. Hence Peter began to instruct them 
by telling them that the apostles were not drunk, as they 
supposed, and that God had raised up that same Jesus 
whom they had wickedly slain, and made Him both Lord 
and Christ ; and that He had shed forth what they then 
saw and heard. And as with many other words he taught 
and exhorted them, it may be that he called their attention 
to the fact that Jesus was once happy in heaven, in com- 
pany with God and angels, while they were without hope 
and without God in the world, destined to misery and 
woe ; that to avert their punishment and secure their sal- 
vation, He left the realms of bliss and came to the world 
a stranger and pilgrim, without a place whereon to lay His 
head. That while He had come on a mission of love for 
them, and mercy to them, they had ungratefully perse- 
cuted and slain Him ; that to increase and protract His 
sufferings, they had compelled Him to bear His own cross 



228 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

up the rugged steeps of Calvary, until, from fatigue and 
exhaustion, He sunk beneath its weight; that to intensify 
the infamy with which they intended to load down His 
memory, they compelled Him to die between two thieves ; 
that to mock His pretensions as King, they had put on 
Him a purple robe, and encircled His bead with a crown 
of thorns, then buffeted Him, spat upon Him, and hailed 
Him in derision as King of the Jews ; that they had sus- 
pended Him upon nails driven through His tender hands 
to the cross, and, when in the midst of His agony He 
asked them for drink, they gave Him vinegar mingled 
with gall. And while suffering all this for them, He 
loved them still — yes, He even loved the man that drove 
the nails through His hands, and prayed, " Father, forgive 
them ; they know not what they do." 

" See, from His head, His hands, His feet, 

Sorrow and love flow mingled down ; 
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, 

Or thorns compose so rich a crown ? 
Were the whole realm of nature mine, 

That were a present far too small ; 
Love so amazing, so divine, 

Demands my soul, my life, my all." 

When they heard these things they were pierced in 
their hearts. And is it surprising that they were? Ah! 
would it not have been surprising beyond measure had 
they not been deeply affected by the scenes that had been 
made to pass afresh before them on that occasion ? They 
then knew how to appreciate the testimony that God had 
borne to the divine character of His Son, through the 
convulsions that took place in the laws of nature when 
He expired upon the cross. They had felt the earth trem- 
ble beneath their unhallowed feet, until the rocks abour 



FAITH. 229 

them had been shaken to atoms, and the vail of their 
sacred temple, that had stood for ages, had been rent in 
twain from top to bottom. The king of day, for the first 
time since God had placed him in the firmament, refused 
to give his light, and the world was enveloped in darkness, 
while all nature was clad in the habiliments of mourning 
because the Son of God was dead. Why all this ? " God 
so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, 
that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life." 

" He left His radiant throne on high, 
Left the bright realms of bliss, 
And came to earth to bleed and die — 

Was ever love like this ? 
Oh ! for this love let rocks and hills 

Their lasting silence break, 
And all harmonious human tongues 
Their Saviour's praises speak." 

Reader, have you no place in your heart's deepest affec- 
tions for a Saviour like this ? But we are wandering from 
the point before us. 

The testimony was believed with all the heart, and by it 
their enmity was subdued. They saw their lost and ruined 
condition, and hence felt their need of a Saviour. Their 
law had been : " He that sheddeth man's blood by man 
shall his blood be shed." Seeing no means of escape, in 
deep anguish of soul they cry out : " Men and brethren, 
what shall we do ? " We can scarcely forbear quoting the 
answer, but it must bide its time. How simple the proc- 
ess ! They had improper views of the Saviour when they 
killed Him ; but the statements made by Peter, and the 
miraculous confirmation of them by the Holy Spirit, 
convinced them that they had been mistaken, and thus 



23O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

corrected their faith, and different faith produced different 
feelings and actions. Surely, this is clear enough. 

We have said that the testimony was believed with all 
the heart. When true eunuch demanded baptism of Philip, 
he answered : " If thou believest with all thy heart thou 
mayest." Acts viii: 37. There is a depth of meaning in 
this expression that we fear is not comprehended by all. 
The word all implies that there may be such a thing as a 
part of the whole ; and when Philip said, " If thou be- 
lievest with all thy heart" he certainly left us to infer that 
there is such a thing as believing without engaging all the 
powers of the heart. Hence there may be a sort of 
passive assent of the mind to the propositions of the 
Bible that falls very far short of that faith which works by 
love and purifies the heart. When a scribe once asked 
the Saviour for the first commandment, Jesus said : " Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with 
all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy 
strength." Mark xii : 30. The same thought is here in- 
tensified by repeating it in different forms of speech, so as 
to forcibly impress us with the fact that God intends to 
engage the whole powers of the heart ; and the faith which 
falls below this is worth nothing to any one. Hence says 
David : " I will praise thee, O Lord, with my whole heart." 
Ps. ix: 1. Our faith must be sufficiently strong to subju- 
gate the lusts, appetites, and passions — in a word, the 
whole man to the will of the Lord, and fill the heart with 
love. It must enable us to appreciate our dependence 
upon God, and feel the need of a Saviour, and put our trust 
in Him. It must enable us to rise above all the influences 
of earth, and disregard what friends, relatives, or the 
world may say of us, and feel, in the great deep of our 
hearts, to say, " Speak, Lord, thy servant will hear ; com- 
mand, and he will obey." 



FAITH. 231 

" Through floods and flames, if Jesus lead, 
I'll follow where He goes; 
Hinder me not, shall be my cry, 
Though earth and hell oppose." 

If heaven is worth any thing it is worth every thing ; 
and he who stops to reason with himself about what it 
will cost him, or the sacrifices he will have to make to 
obey God-, or the conveniences and inconveniences attend- 
ing the requirements which God has made of him, is not 
in a fit frame of mind to obey God acceptably in any 
thing, and need not attempt it until he can bring himself 
more fully into subjection to His will. 

But we are told that God has to purify or change the 
heart before faith, so as to enable us to believe, and the 
language of the prophet is invoked to prove this position : 
" A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will 
I put within you : and I will take away the stony heart 
out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh." 
Ezek. xxxvi : 26. And again : " I will give them one heart, 
and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take 
the stony heart out of their flesh, and I will give them a 
heart of flesh : that they may walk in my statutes, and 
keep mine ordinances, and do them : and they shall be my 
people, and I will be their God." Ezek. xi : 19, 20. 

If these quotations prove that God, by His Spirit, puri- 
fies and renews the heart, and until He does this we can 
not believe and obey Him, and He never does it, will He 
send us to hell for an impurity of heart which He alone 
could remove ? With this interpretation of these quota- 
tions before us, let us try another : " Cast away from you 
all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed, and 
make y on a new heart and a new spirit ; for why will ye 
die, O house of Israel ? For I have no pleasure in the 
death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God ; wherefore 



2$2 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

turn yourselves and live ye." Ezek. xviii : 31, 32. Now 
what is to be done with these quotations ? They are all 
from the same prophet, inspired by the same God. Does 
God contradict Himself? It certainly will be conceded 
that the phrase " stony heart " was used to indicate that 
hardness of heart which the Jews had produced in them- 
selves by indulgence in crime, the consequences of which 
they had keenly felt in the numerous disasters which had 
befallen them. It will be conceded, also, that the phrase 
"heart of flesh" was intended to indicate that subdued 
state of mind in which God proposed to again receive 
them into His favor. As man is a creature subject to be 
influenced by motive, God, through the prophet, in the 
same chapter, recounts their afflictions and wickedness as 
follows : " When the house of Israel dwelt in their own 
land, they defiled it by their own way, and by their doings. 
. . . . Wherefore, I poured my fury upon them for the 
blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols 
wherewith they had polluted it : and I scattered them 
among the heathen, and they were dispersed through 
the countries : according to their way and according to 
their doings I judged them." Ezek. xxxvi: 17-19. Then, 
after presenting their sufferings and their wickedness, He 
proposes to take them from among the heathens, cleanse 
them from their idolatry, restore to them their country, 
and be to them a God. Were not these high incentives 
to reformation ? And can we not see great similarity in 
the process by which their hearts were proposed to be 
changed, and the process by which the hearts of the Pen- 
tecostians were changed ? In both cases the wickedness 
of the parties and its dire consequences were exhibited, 
and a plan of reconciliation proposed, embracing the 
grandest motives of which the mind can conceive, to in- 
duce acceptance. The arrangement of the terms in both 



FAITH. 233 

cases was the work of God ; the acceptance in one case 
was to be, and in the other case was, the work of man ; 
and thus, in one sense, God changes the heart, while in 
the other, and more common signification of the terms, 
man does it himself. There are other passages we might 
notice, but they will be examined in another department 
of our work. 

What faith does not do, or the doctrine of justification 
by faith alone, will receive attention when we come to con- 
sider objections to the design of baptism. 

20, 



CHAPTER X. 



REPENTANCE. 



WE have arrived at a proper stand-point from which 
to consider the subject of repentance, and to it we 
invite the reader's attention for the present. Its impor- 
tance is admitted by all religious parties and teachers of 
our times. When John came to prepare a people for the 
reception of the Messiah, though he came to the Jews who 
had long been the recognized people of God, he found 
them steeped in wickedness ; hence he said : " Repent ye, 
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt, iii : 2. 
When John was cast into prison and his ministry ended, 
" Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent : for the king- 
dom of heaven is at hand." Matt, iv : 17. When Jesus 
sent the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel, " they went out and preached that men should re- 
pent." Mark vi : 12. Jesus said to those who came to Him, 
"Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish." Luke 
xiii : 3, 5. When He gave the final commission to His 
apostles He said that " repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all nations, begin- 
ning at Jerusalem." Luke xxiv : 47. When the apostles 
began to operate under this authority, they commanded 
believers to " repent and be baptized ... in the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts ii : 38. 
When the disciples were convinced that salvation was not 
confined to the Jews, they "glorified God, saying, Then 
(234) 



REPENTANCE. 235 

« 

hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto 
life." Acts xi : 18. Then, as repentance is so important a 
condition in the gospel plan of salvation, it is important 
that we know what it is, that we may know when we have 
obeyed the divine mandate. 

We find that the word repent occurs in our common 
English Bible forty-two times ; repented occurs thirty times ; 
repentance twenty-six times ; repenteth five times ; and re- 
pentest, repenting, and repentings one time each — in all, one 
hundred and six times. Repent is used with reference to 
God sixteen times, and with reference to man twenty-six 
times. It is used to indicate sorrow eleven times, a change 
of mind or purpose fourteen times, and includes the idea of 
reformation of life eighteen times. Repented is used with 
reference to God thirteen times, and with reference to man 
seventeen times. It is used to indicate sorrow twelve times, 
a change of mind eight times, and includes a change of life 
or reformation ten times. Repentance is used with reference 
to God twice, and with reference to man twenty-four times. 
It is used to indicate sorrow twice, a change of purpose 
once, and extends to reformation of life twenty-three times. 
Repenteth is used with reference to God three times, and 
with reference to man twice. Twice it indicates sorrow, 
once a change of mind, and twice includes a change or 
reformation of life. Repenting and repentest are each used 
once with reference to God to indicate a change of pur- 
pose. Repentings is once used with reference to God to 
indicate sorrow. With reference to God the word is 
sometimes used in a negative sense ; as, " God is not a 
man that he should repent" (Num. xxiii: 19); "The Lord 
hath sworn and will not repent." Ps. ex : 4; Heb. vii : 21. 
Sometimes it is used with reference to God affirmatively ; 
as, "It repented the Lord that he had made man on the 
earth ;" "It repenteth me that I have made them." Gen. 



236 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

• 

vi : 6, 7. At other times it is used with reference to God 
conditionally; as, " If that nation against whom I have 
pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil 
I thought to do unto them. ... If it do evil in my sight, 
that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good 
wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jer. xviii : 8, 10. 
Again, it is sometimes used in petition or supplication to 
God ; as, " Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this 
evil against thy people." Ex. xxxii : 12. In all the forms 
in which the word is used it refers to God thirty-seven 
times, and with reference to man sixty-nine times. It is 
used to indicate sorrow or regret twenty-eight times, a 
change of mind or will twenty-five times, and a change of 
mind resulting in reformation of life fifty-three times. We 
are not concerned or interested in the use of the term as ap- 
plied to God ; its application to man is that which more di- 
rectly concerns us, and to it we will confine our examination. 

When used in the New Testament as a command to the 
alien in order to the remission of sins, it always indicates 
such a change of mind as produces a change or reforma- 
tion of life under circumstances warranting the conclusion 
that sorrow for the past would or had preceded it. When 
so used it is invariably a translation of the Greek word 
metanoio ; and when used to indicate sorrow or regret it is 
always from metamelomai — a different word, though im- 
properly rendered the same in English. Had these words 
been properly translated we think it likely that much of 
the confusion on the subject of repentance would have 
been prevented. Regret is certainly a much more fitting 
representative of metamelomai than repentance, and why 
it has not been so translated is more than we can tell. 

A striking example of the difference in the meaning of 
the word repent when derived from these different Greek 
words will be found in 2 Cor. vii : 8-10: "For though I 



REPENTANCE. 237 

made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent \inetamelomai, 
regret], though I did repent [inetamelomen, regret], for I 
perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though 
it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were 
made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance \metanoian, 
reformation] : for ye were made sorry after a godly man- 
ner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing ; for 
godly sorrow worketh repentance [meta7ioian, reformation] 
to salvation not to be repented [metameleton, regretted]." 
Surely, nothing could be more apparent than the differ- 
ence in the use which Paul makes of these two Greek 
words, though both rendered repent in the common ver- 
sion. Paul wrote the Corinthians a letter which made 
them sorry, and he regretted it, but he ceased to regret it 
when he saw that their sorrow worked in them repent- 
ance ; i. e., such a change of mind as culminated in their 
reformation. 

The words repentance, in the commission, Luke xxiv : 47, 
and repent, as used by Peter, Acts ii : 38, and iii : 19, are 
from the Greek metanoio, and not from metamelomai, and 
hence means more than sorrow for past sins. We sav 
more, because that change of mind which we call repent- 
ance always implies that sorrow for the past has preceded 
it. When the Jews at Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, 
heard Peter's preaching, and by it were convinced that 
they had truly crucified and slain the Son of God ; they 
were pierced in their hearts, and cried out, " Men and 
brethren, what shall we do ?" Acts ii : 37. Can we con- 
clude that the hearts of those who asked this soul-stirring 
question were not filled with sorrow for the sins from 
which they desired salvation ? Yet they were commanded 
to repent. But it may be said that the sorrow which they 
had was not godly sorrow, and this is the reason why it 
was not repentance. Their sorrow was the product of 



238 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

their faith, and their faith was produced by Peter's preach- 
ing, which was dictated by the Holy Spirit, sent that day 
from heaven, by Him who sat at God's right hand. Surely, 
if this was not godly sorrow, then there can be no such 
thing connected with conversion. But is godly sorrow 
repentance ? Paul did not so think. He says : " Now I 
rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed 
to repentance, for ye were made sorry after a godly man- 
ner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For 
godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be 
repented of; but the sorrow of the world worketh death." 
2 Cor. vii : 9, 10. Here we learn that godly sorrow pre- 
cedes repentance, but certainly is not repentance. Godly 
sorrow is produced by respect for God and His violated 
law, and produces a change of mind which induces refor- 
mation or change of life ; while the sorrow of the world 
may be produced by the fact that the party has been de- 
tected in crime— is subjected to the frowns of men or the 
punishment inflicted by human laws — perchance because 
his schemes have proven unprofitable and have resulted in 
loss to him. Such is the sorrow of the world, and makes 
no man better, but ends in death. The repentance con- 
templated in the commission, and required by Peter of 
those to whom he spake, began where they gladly received 
his words, with a fixed purpose to reform their lives in 
accordance therewith, and it was preceded by deep sorrow 
for the wrongs they had done. 

But we have a definition of repentance incidentally given 
us in the Scriptures which will make the matter, if pos- 
sible, more plain. Jesus on one occasion said : " The men 
of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, 
and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preach- 
ing of Jonas ; and, behold,, a greater than Jonas is here." 
Matt, xii: 41. Jesus here says that the men of Nineveh 



REPENTANCE. 239 

repented at the preaching of Jonas ; if, therefore, we can 
learn what the Ninevites did, we can thence learn what 
Jesus meant by repentance. " God saw their works, that 
they turned from their evil zvay ; and God repented of the 
evil that he had said that he would do unto them, and he 
did it not." Jonah iii : 10. Then, the change of mind 
which resulted in turning the Ninevites from their evil 
ways constituted their repentance. 

The determination to reform must be such as will lead 
the party to a reparation of injuries done to others, as far as 
may be in his power to make restitution. In vain may any 
one tell me that he repents slandering me while he refuses 
to correct his false statements concerning me, or that he 
repents stealing my horse while he continues to ride him 
without my consent. A circumstance recorded on page 
256, Ch. Syst, which, whether real or imaginary, so aptly 
illustrates our view of this subject, that we feel constrained 
to transcribe it : 

" Peccator wounded the reputation of his neighbor Her- 
mis, and on another occasion defrauded him of ten pounds. 
Some of the neighborhood were apprised that he had done 
both. Peccator was converted under the preaching of 
Paulinus, and, on giving in a relation of his sorrow for his 
sins, spoke of the depth of his convictions and of his ab- 
horrence of his transgressions. He was received into the 
congregation and sat down with the faithful to commem- 
orate the great sin-offering. Hermis and his neighbors 
were witnesses of all this. They saw that Peccator was 
penitent and much reformed in his behavior, but they 
could not believe him sincere because he had made no res- 
titution. They regarded him either as a hypocrite or self- 
deceived, because, having it in his power, he repaid not the 
ten pounds, nor once contradicted the slanders he had 
propagated. Peccator, however, felt little enjoyment in 



24O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

his profession, and soon fell back into his former habits. 
He became again penitent, and, on examining the grounds 
of his falling off, discovered that he had never cordially 
turned away from his sins. Overwhelmed in sorrow for 
the past, he resolved on giving himself up to the Lord, 
and, reflecting on his past life, set about the work of refor- 
mation in earnest. He called on Hermis, paid him his ten 
pounds, and the interest for every day he had kept it back, 
went to all the persons to whom he had slandered him, told 
them what injustice he had done him, and begged them, if 
they had told it to any other persons, to contradict it. Sev- 
eral other persons whom he had wronged in his dealings 
with them, he also visited, and fully redressed all these 
wrongs against his neighbors. He also confessed them to 
the Lord, and asked Him to forgive him. Peccator was 
then restored to the church, and, better still, he enjoyed a 
peace of mind and confidence in God which was a contin- 
ual feast. His example, moreover, did more to enlarge the 
congregation at the cross-roads than did the preaching of 
Paulinus in a whole year. This was unequivocally sincere 
repentance." 

Dr. Adam Clark, in his commentary on Genesis, says : 
" No man should expect mercy at the hand of God, who, 
having wronged his neighbor, refuses, when he has it in 
his power, to make restitution. Were he to weep tears of 
blood, both the justice and mercy of God would shut out 
his prayers if he make not his neighbor amends for the 
injury he has done him." 

This principle seems to have ever characterized God's 
dealings with men. In the Jewish law it is said : " When 
a man or a woman shall commit any sin that men commit, 
or do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty, 
then they shall confess their sin which they have done ; and 
he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, 



REPENTANCE. 24 1 

and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him 
against whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no 
kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass 
be recompensed unto the Lord, even to the priest." Num. 
v : 6-8. Now, it will be seen that, during the existence of 
this law, a trespass against a man was regarded as a trespass 
against God, the Giver of the law forbidding the trespass ; 
and it was not only necessary to recompense to the party 
aggrieved, but it was necessary to add a fifth part to it. And 
if he could not find the party to whom recompense was 
due, he should make it to his kindred if he had any ; and 
if there were none, then it was required to be made to the 
Lord through the priest. There was no escape from mak- 
ing restitution. See also Lev. vi : 1-7. Indeed, it is diffi- 
cult to conceive it possible ' for the heart of a man to be 
wholly subjugated to the will of the Lord and he not feel 
a desire to restore any thing unjustly taken from any one. 
If his pretensions be real he will make restitution if in his 
power to do so. We do not mean that all this must be 
consummated before remission of sins and adoption into 
the family of God can take place ; but we insist that the 
disposition or purpose of heart must be present before the 
party is in a fit frame of mind to further obey God in any 
thing. And if the purpose thus formed is abandoned and 
not carried out, "it had been better for them not to have 
known the way of righteousness, than after they have 
known it to turn from the holy commandment delivered 
unto them." 2 Pet. ii : 21. Zaccheus said: " If I have 
taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore 
him fourfold. And Jesus said, This day is salvation come 
to this house." Luke xix : 8, 9. Thus we see that the 
principle of restitution met the approval of Jesus, even to 
the extent of fourfold. 

Once more : Jesus once said to a distinguished lawyer: 
21 



242 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Matt, xxii : 39. 
If we do this, will we not do by our neighbor as we do by 
ourselves ? As the golden precept which crowned the rich 
casket of jewels contained in the sermon on the mount, it 
is said : " Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, 
do you even so to them." Matt, vii : 12. Do we desire 
that others withhold from tis that which they have wrong- 
fully taken from us ? Or do we not rather desire them to 
restore to us that which is our own ? If so, then we are 
bound to make that restitution to others which, under like 
circumstances, we would have them make to us. True, 
this is a strait and narrow path, and few there be who 
walk therein; but it is nevertheless "the law and the 
prophets." He who would come to God must come with a 
clean breast ; hence " let us draw near with a true heart in 
full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an 
evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." 
Heb. x : 22. 

We come now to look for the order or place of repent- 
ance in the scheme of salvation presented in the gospel. 
From the fact that repentance is mentioned before faith, 
in a few places in the New Testament, many have con- 
cluded that men must repent before they exercise faith. 
We will very briefly examine these scriptures, that we 
may see whether or not they prove the doctrine in ques- 
tion. 

" Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came 
into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 
and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God 
is at hand : repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark i : 14, 
15. These persons were not required to believe the same 
gospel that was to be preached to every creature alluded 
to in the commission given after the resurrection of Jesus, 
but they were simply to believe in the good news that the 



REPENTANCE. 243 

• 

kingdom of God was at hand. This was the gospel which 
Jesus preached to them. They were Jews who had pre- 
vious faith in God whose laws they had violated ; hence 
for this they were required to repent and then believe in 
the coming reign of Messiah. In like manner Paul 
preached to the Ephesians " repentance toward God and 
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Acts xx : 21. Their re- 
pentance was toward God, in whom they believed before 
the Messiahship of Jesus was proclaimed to them. Hence 
toward Him their repentance was directed. There is still 
another passage worthy of note in this connection : " John 
came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed 
him not ; but the publicans and harlots believed him : and 
you, when you had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye 
might believe him." Matt.' xxi : 32. Here we not only 
have the word repentance before faith, but expressive of 
that which was necessary to faith ; but it is from mctame- 
lomai, indicating regret, and not from the word indicative 
of that change of mind which is truly repentance. It was 
the pride of the self-righteous Pharisees that kept them 
from believing the proofs and accepting the ministry of 
John. When they saw the publicans and harlots acting 
more consistently in submitting to His teaching, as they 
believed in God by whom John was sent, they should have 
regretted that these outcasts outstripped them in obedi- 
ence to the servant of the God in whom they believed ; and 
had they been filled with such regret, it would have pre- 
pared them for faith in the glad tidings proclaimed by 
John. 

Having seen that the strongest proofs relied on do not 
support the theory, it may be well to see whether the in- 
terpretation given to these scriptures by the advocates of 
the theory be not contradicted by other scriptures the im- 
port of which we can not mistake. Paul says : " Whatso- 



244 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

• 

ever is not of faith is sin." Rom. xiv: 23. If repentance 
precedes faith, it can not be of faith, and is therefore sin. 
Again : " Without faith it is impossible to please him, for 
he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he 
is a revvarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb. xi : 6. 
If repentance precedes faith, it is without faith, and hence 
can not be pleasing to God. Surely, then, there must be 
error in the theory. Finally : The advocates of this doc- 
trine associate repentance with prayer, generally, at the 
mourner's bench. Now, if these prayers, connected with 
repentance, are before faith, they can not be in faith. 
James says: "Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for 
he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the 
wind and tossed ; let not that man think that he shall re- 
ceive any thing of the Lord." Jas. i : 6, 7. Will God hear 
and answer these prayers made in connection with repent- 
ance (so called) before faith ? James says : " Let not that 
man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." 
If there be truth in Holy Writ, a prayer made before faith 
will not be answered. 

Perhaps it may be well to examine the history of a few 
actual cases of repentance, and see whether it preceded or 
succeeded faith. We have seen that Jesus himself said 
that the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah ; let 
us see whether or not faith in Jonah's preaching preceded 
their repentance: "And Jonah began to enter into the 
city a day's journey, and he cried and said, Yet forty days 
and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Jonah iii : 4. Here 
is the preaching ; what was the first effect of it ? "So 
the people believed God." Here is their faith, the first 
thi?ig. What next ? " They proclaimed a fast, and put on 
sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of 
them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he 
arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and 



REPENTANCE. 245 

covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he 
caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh, 
by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither 
man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing : let them 
not feed, nor drink water : but let man and beast be cov- 
ered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God ; yea, let 
them turn, every one, from his evil way, and from the vio- 
lence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn 
and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we 
perish not ? And God saw their works, that they turned 
from their evil ways." Jonah iii : 5-10. Here is their re- 
pentance. Who can not see the order of events? First, 
Jonah preached the message which God gave him to say 
to them. Second, The people believed God. Third, 
They turned from their evil way. On the day of Pente- 
cost the order was similar. Peter preached, the people 
heard, believed, were cut to the heart, asked what to do, 
were commanded to repent and be baptized. In the nar- 
rative already twice quoted from Paul, 2 Cor. vii : 8-10, he 
wrote them a letter ; they believed it — were made sorry by 
it — they sorrowed in a godly manner, and their godly sor- 
row worked repentance. 

It will be admitted that repentance is produced in some 
way by some cause. If it precedes faith, faith can not be 
the cause of it, and we would be pleased to learn what 
does produce it. Do you admit that a belief with all the 
heart in God, Jesus, heaven, hell, apostles, prophets, and 
all things written and spoken by inspiration, precedes 
and causes repentance ? then will you please give us a 
minute description of the faith that follows repentance — 
what it is, and how it comes. We acknowledge the want 
of light along here. We are not very well prepared to un- 
derstand how we are to repent for transgressing the laws 
of a king in whom we have no faith. To us the doc- 



246 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

trine seems not only contrary to the order of the Bible, 
but at war with every principle of reason and common 
sense. 

But we may be told that repentance is the direct gift of 
God. The distinguished Watson says : " But if repent- 
ance be taken in the Second sense, and this is certainly 
the light in which true repentance is exhibited in the 
Scriptures, then it is forgotten that such is the corrupt 
state of man that he is incapable of penitence of this kind. 
This follows from that view of human depravity which we 
have already established from the Scriptures, and which 
we need not repeat. In conformity with this view of the 
entire corruptness of man's nature, therefore repentance is 
said to be the gift of Christ, who, in consequence of being 
exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, gives repentance as 
well as remission of sins — a gift quite superfluous if to re- 
pent truly were in the power of man and independent of 
Christ. To suppose man to be capable of a repentance 
which is the result of genuine principle, is to assume hu- 
man nature to be what it is not." Watsons Institutes, 
vol. ii, pp. 98, 99. 

It seems to us that the dogma of hereditary depravity is 
the Pandora's box from which have sprung most, if not all, 
the errors which distract the religious world. This doc- 
trine once received, and every thing else is tried by it. 
Hence man can not repent because the total depravity of 
his nature renders him incapable of it ; and though God 
has commanded him to repent, and told him plainly that 
he shall perish if he does not repent, yet He must give 
him repentance before he can repent ! ! Suppose God 
never gives the man repentance, and per consequence the 
man never repents, what then ? Will God damn him for 
His own neglect ? Surely not. We know it is said : " Him 
hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and 



REPENTANCE. 247 

a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgive- 
ness of sins." Actsv: 31. Again: "Then hath God 
also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts 
xi: 18. 

Are these passages sufficient to prove that man is inca- 
pable of repenting ? God gives us bread, but we have to 
work and make it, nevertheless. So God gives us repent- 
ance by placing motives before us to induce it; hence Paul 
asks : " Despisest thou the riches of his goodness and 
forbearance and longsuffering ; not knowing that the 
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance ?" Rom. ii : 4. 
God has manifested His love for man in the gift of His 
Son, through whom salvation is offered on certain condi- 
tions, among which repentance holds a prominent place. 
He has revealed Himself to man in all the loveliness of 
His true character. The joys and bliss of heaven are set 
forth in a revelation adapted to his comprehension, and 
thus the goodness of God leads man to repentance ; hence 
Paul says : " The servant of the Lord must not strive ; but 
be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient ; in meekness 
instructing those that oppose themselves ; if God perad- 
venture will give them repentance to the acknowledging 
of the truth ; and that they may recover themselves out 
of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at 
his will." 2 Tim. ii : 24-26. Why should the servant of 
the Lord manifest such patience, and so meekly instruct 
the opposers, if God gives them repentance directly? 
Does not this case clearly show that God gives men repent- 
ance by a system of means calculated to produce it ? He 
gives man faith by giving him testimony calculated to pro- 
duce it, and will damn him if he does not believe it. He 
gives man bread by giving him the means with which to 
make it, but unless he uses the means he will starve for 
food. So God gives man repentance by causing repent- 



248 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ance and remission of sins to be preached among all na- 
tions in the name of His Son, yet he who does not repent 
will surely perish. Then let no man wait for God to give 
him repentance directly, until he is willing to sit, with 
folded arms, and wait for God to give him bread in the 
same way. 



CHAPTER XI, 



THE CONFESSION. 



IT is very generally admitted that some sort of a con- 
fession of something should be made by every one at 
sometime prior to admission into the church of God ; but 
what this confession is, how and when it should be made, 
and its office in the plan of salvation, are questions which 
have greatly perplexed those who have spoken and written 
concerning them for the last three hundred years. In the 
earlier ages of the church persons were required to confess 
with the mouth their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of 
God prior to baptism, and the only question worthy of our 
consideration at present is whether or not this practice 
was authorized by inspired precept or example. Paul says : 
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- 
able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thor- 
oughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii : 16, 17. 
If the man of God is authorized to require the confession to 
be made by any one, surely it is a good work ; and if a good 
work, the Scriptures thoroughly furnish the man of God to 
it ; i. e., they thoroughly 'furnish the man of God with all 
needful instructions concerning it. If he is not therein 
thoroughly furnished to it, then it follows that it is not a 
good work, and should be abandoned. It may be well, then, 
for us to examine the Divine Volume, and see whether or 
not it furnishes authority for such a practice. 

(249) 



250 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

i 

When the Ethiopian nobleman demanded baptism at 
the hands of Philip, the inspired teacher said : " If thou 
believest with all thy heart thou mayest. And he an- 
swered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God." Acts viii : 37. That this was the proper confes- 
sion is evident from the fact that it was satisfactory to the 
man of God, who thereupon proceeded at once to baptize 
him. And that it should be made after faith is evident 
from the fact that it would have been false had not the 
faith preceded it ; and that it should be made before bap- 
tism is evident from the fact that it was demanded as a 
condition precedent to baptism. Here, then, we learn 
what is to be confessed : i. e., that " I believe /hat Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God," and that the time to make it is 
after faith and before baptism. While this verse is re- 
garded as genuine, the question of authority for this con- 
fession is not debatable at all. Here is a plain, unmistak- 
able precedent which we dare not ignore. Our practice 
must conform to it, or the passage must be removed from 
the divine volume. But we are told that the passage is 
spurious — an interpolation which constitutes no part of the 
inspired text. 

While our limits will not allow us to enter upon an' 
extensive examination of the claims of this verse, nor 
have the means afforded us been such as to enable us 
to decide the matter, even to our own satisfaction, we are 
by no means satisfied that the proofs offered by those who 
would set it aside are conclusive. Indeed, we are not quite 
sure that there is, at this day, a possibility of knowing with 
certainty that it is spurious. This narrative (the Acts), 
like all the other books of the New Testament, was at first 
a separate manuscript, and was circulated by being copied 
by uninspired men. These copies were again copied, and 
copies of copies were copied, how far from the original we 



THE CONFESSION. 25 I 

have no means of knowing. The first copy taken was in 
all probability imperfect, as it is very difficult to copy 
any thing without imperfections ; and these imperfections 
must have increased, as the copies were more remote from 
the original, because each copy must contain the errors of 
the one from which it was taken, with the chance of incor- 
porating others. As the only sure method of correcting 
these errors was to compare copies with the original, 
when it wore out, we see not how any further corrections 
could have been made. That the original manuscript, and 
all copies taken directly from it, have long since been 
worn out is next to certain. 

How, then, are the claims of the verse in question to be 
settled ? Were it wanting in all the manuscripts of the first 
thousand years, and only found in such as are of modern 
date, this would be a circumstance well calculated to cast 
suspicion upon it ; but Dr. Hacket tells us that this inter- 
polation was known to Irenaeus as early as the year 170. 
Then it was bound to have been in copies taken at or be- 
fore that period. It is fair to presume that the original 
and all the first copies were circulated among, and read, 
and handled by thousands of persons, and hence were most 
likely worn out before that time, so that we are not sure 
that even Irenaeus had the privilege of comparing such 
copies as he saw with the original, so as to be assured that 
it was spurious. Hence, unless Dr. Hacket would furnish 
us with the testimony upon which Irenaeus based his 
judgment, we can not accept it as conclusive. 

Tregellus tells us that this verse was inserted by Eras- 
mus, as being supposed to have been incorrectly omitted 
in his manuscripts ; and from his edition this and similar 
passages have been perpetuated, just as if they were un- 
doubtedly genuine. Are we to understand by this that 
the interpolation began with Erasmus ? If so, how could 



252 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Irenaeus have known of it so early as A. D. 170, more 
than twelve hundred years before the time Erasmus lived? 
It occurs to us that those who would set aside this verse 
should harmonize their testimony, for when it is so plainly 
inconsistent we are inclined to reject it all. 

The circumstance which casts the darkest shade upon 
the purity of the verse is the fact that the most profound 
critics, whose opportunities have been best for examining 
the subject, and whose peculiar labors called them directly 
into its examination, have decided against it. Tregellus 
tells us that " no part of this verse is recognized in critical 
texts." While the version of the New Testament put forth 
by the American Bible Union retains the verse, the trans- 
lators have appended a foot-note, saying, " It is wanting in 
the best authorities." As it was their object to give the 
English reader a pure version of the mind of the Spirit, 
we see not why they retained the verse at all, if satisfied 
that it was spurious. Anderson has excluded the verse 
from his version of the New Testament, and many other 
men of great research have pronounced it an interpola- 
tion ; but, as far as we have been able to examine the 
grounds of their decision, we regard them as inconclusive ; 
and we think that attacks upon a verse that has had a 
place in the Bible, according to the testimony of its oppos- 
ers, since the year 170, more than seventeen hundred years, 
should be very cautiously made, lest, unfortunately, we 
shake the confidence of the uninformed in the whole 
Bible. 

Were this verse inconsistent with the sense of the con- 
text, we might give more credit to attacks upon its purity ; 
on the contrary, as it is not only in harmony with the con- 
text, but indispensable to a completion of the sense, we in- 
sist that a presumption is created in its favor ; and we 
wish to call attention to what we think is plain to the most 



THE CONFESSION. 253 

ordinary reader, that there is evidently a blank in the nar- 
rative without the 37th verse. We quote from Anderson's 
version of the New Testament, in which the verse is omit- 
ted : "And as they went along the road they came to some 
water, and the eunuch said: See, here is water; what hin- 
ders me from being immersed ? And he commanded the 
chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the 
water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed 
him." 

Now, please observe that when they came to water the 
eunuch asked a question, saying, " See, here is water, what 
hinders me from being immersed ?" and to this important 
question his inspired instructor makes no answer what- 
ever ! none!! He knew that Jesus, in the very commis- 
sion which authorized the act about to be performed, said : 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," and 
when asked what hindered baptism he made no answer at 
all, but, acting upon the presumption that the eunuch be- 
lieved, proceeded to baptize him, without asking whether 
he believed or not. And, stranger still, the eunuch com- 
manded the chariot to stand still, and got out of it, without 
knowing whether Philip would baptize him or not. Are 
we to believe that Philip said nothing in answer to the 
question ? and yet the eunuch commanded the chariot to 
be still — that both got out of it and went down into the 
water in silence. Can any sane man believe it ? Is 
there not a perceivable blank which the sense requires to 
be filled with just such language as we find in the verse 
in question ? We can not pursue the subject further, but 
dismiss it with the remark that the verse is fairly dedu- 
cible from the connection, and it will require stronger 
proof than we have yet seen to shake our confidence in 
its purity. But whether it be real or spurious the con- 
fession can be justified by other scriptures, the authen- 



254 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ticity of which will not be called in question by any be- 
liever in the inspiration of the Bible. 

Upon the banks of Jordan, in the presence of the multi- 
tude that waited on the ministry of John, God bore witness 
to the divine character and mission of His Son, saying : 
" This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
Matt, iii: 17. 

Upon the truth of the grand proposition that Jesus 
is the Christ y the S071 of God, rests the salvation of the 
world, and in it are centered all the hopes which mor- 
tals can have that reach beyond the grave. It under- 
lies the whole scheme of man's redemption. For if He 
be not the Son of God, He was an impostor, the Bible is a 
fable, and no man was, is, or ever will be under obligations 
to believe in or obey Him. On the contrary, if this is 
true, His pretensions were real, His claims are just, and 
every man who professes to believe it puts himself under 
obligations to accept the terms he imposes. Hence, Jesus 
said : " Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, 
him will I confess also before my Father which is in 
heaven ; but whosoever shall deny me before men, him 
will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." 
Matt, x: 33. Here He gives us plainly to know the im- 
portance of confessing Him before men. But how did they 
confess Him ? When the parents of the blind man, whose 
eyes were opened by Jesus, were questioned, they feared 
the people, for " the Jews had agreed already that if any 
man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put 
out of the synagogue." John ix : 22. Then to confess 
Him was to confess that He was the Christ, and to deny Him 
was to deny that He was the Christ. Of course, some 
were making this confession, and others denying it, or the 
Jews would not have made such an agreement concern- 
ing those who did make it These sayings among the 



THE CONFESSION. 255 

people may have given rise to the question which Jesus 
asked His disciples, saying : " Whom do men say that I, 
the Son of man, am?" Matt, xvi : 13. In answer to this 
question the disciples gave some of the opinions which 
the people expressed concerning Him, when He put the 
question directly to them, saying : " Whom say ye that I am ? 
And Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the living God." Matt, xvi : 15, 16. Here the 
same grand truth is confessed by Peter ; and Jesus assures 
him that on it His church is to be built : as much as to say, 
" All my claims upon the world rest upon this truth which 
you have now confessed, not because you have confessed 
it, but because it is tme. You could not have known it, 
had not my Father, at my baptism, and at my trans- 
figuration, and also through the mighty works I have 
done in His name, in your presence, revealed it to you. 
All who confess it put themselves under obligations thereby 
to accept the terms and obligations I impose, as much as 
if God, who sent me, did himself impose them ; hence I 
will make this truth the foundation of my church." By 
making this confession the party puts himself under the 
strongest possible obligations to observe all the ordinances 
emanating from Jesus as Head of the church built upon 
the truth confessed. Hence says John : " Whosoever shall 
confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in 
him, and he in God." 1 John iv : 15. And again : "Who 
is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth 
that Jesus is the Son of God." 1 John v: 5. 

Having thus seen that this fact, which was attested by 
God and confessed by Peter, is the truth to be believed in 
order to overcome the world, and confessed in order that 
God may dwell in the party making it, it may be well to 
see how it is confessed. Paul says that "at the name of 
Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven, and things 



256 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue 
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of 
God the Father." Phil, ii : 10, 11. Again: "As I live, 
saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every 
tongue shall confess to God." Rom. xiv : 11. In these 
quotations two important facts are made apparent. First : 
The confession is to be made with the tongtie. Second : 
God has determined that it shall be made, and, therefore, it 
can not be dispensed with or ignored by those who would 
honor His authority. 

But' from the pen of the same apostle we have another 
lesson on this subject. He says : " If thou shalt confess 
with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy 
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt 
be saved ; for with the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
ness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salva- 
tion." Rom. x: 9, 10. We here learn that the confession 
is not only to be made with the month, but it is a condition 
of salvation, and therefore precedes remission of sins. Mark 
well that Paul does not say " with a nod of the head con- 
fession is made unto salvation," nor does he say that by 
visiting the sick, or other acts of obedience through life, 
confession is made— but it is made with the mouth U7ito 
salvation; and while Paul is thus specific we dare not 
accept it made in any other way, provided the subject has 
the use of the tongue with which to make it. 

Having learned that the confession with the mouth is a 
condition of and unto salvation, and therefore before it, 
and as Jesus says that " he that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved" (Mark xvi : 16), it follows that confession 
precedes baptism. As the baptized believer is saved, there 
is no period betzveen his baptism and his salvation in which 
to make the confession ; and hence, as it is made before sal- 
vation, it is certainly made before baptism. As it is with 






THE CONFESSION. 



257 



the heart man believeth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God, and with the month he confesses what the heart 
believes, it follows that the confession with the mouth is 
subsequent to faith or belief; hence, clearly the confession 
is located after faith and before baptism. As stated else- 
where, were a man to make the confession with the mouth 
before he believed with the heart, it would be a downright 
falsehood, for he would thereby say he believed what he 
did not believe. 

Now, if the reader will review the ground over which 
we have traveled, he will find that God has determined 
that man shall confess with the mouth his faith in Jesus 
Christ as being the Son of God before he is baptized, and 
by so doing he puts himself under obligation to observe all 
the laws emanating from Him as Head of the church built 
upon the truth he thus confesses. Paul's account of Tim- 
othy's confession is in perfect harmony with this view of 
the whole subject. We quote from Anderson's version as 
follows : " Fight the good fight of faith ; lay hold on eter- 
nal life to which you have been called, and for which you 
confessed the good confession before many witnesses." 
1 Tim. vi : 12. Jesus proposed to confess such as con- 
fessed Him before men — Timothy made the good confes- 
sion before many witnesses. Paul tells the Romans that con- 
fession is made unto salvation ; and when we supply the 
antecedent to which the relative "which" refers in his 
account of Timothy's confession, we find it reading thus: 
" For which, eternal life, you confessed the good confes- 
sion." Then Timothy made the confession unto salvation, 
or for eternal life, " whereunto he was called" by the gos- 
pel when Paul preached it to him. Surely this is plain 
enough. 

That the "good confession" made by Timothy consisted 
in confessing that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, is 
22 



258 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

further shown by the fact that in the next verse Paul ap- 
plies the very same words — " the good confession" — to the 
confession made by Jesus before Pontius Pilate. And 
though in the account given by Matthew of what He said 
in answer to Pilate, the words / am the Son of God are 
not found, yet we are assured by the testimony of His en- 
emies that this was embraced in His confession. In de- 
rision they said : " If thou be the Son of God, come down 
from the cross." And again : " He trusted in God, let 
him deliver him now, if he will have him : for he said, I 
am the Son of God." Matt, xxvii : 40-43. If this, then, 
was what Paul called the good confession when made by 
the Saviour, it is also what he called the good confession 
when made by Timothy, before many witnesses, for eter- 
nal life, whereunto he was called by the gospel which was 
preached to him. Kind reader, have you made this con- 
fession with your mouth to your salvation ? If not, you 
may have to make it to your eternal condemnation, for we 
have seen that the decree has gone forth that every tongue 
shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father. 

But it is sometimes said that there was not time enough 
on the day of Pentecost, after Peter quit preaching, for 
three thousand to have made this confession before their 
baptism. Will the objector tell us how long it would have 
taken, on that occasion, for this same three thousand to 
have each told such an "experience" as He requires pre- 
vious to baptism ? While it would have been possible for 
one speaker (and there were twelve present) to have pro- 
pounded the question, " Does each one of you believe, with 
all the heart, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ?" 
and the response, " I do" to have come simultaneously 
from three thousand tongues in as little time as it could 
have been asked of and answered by a single person, it 



THE CONFESSION. 259 

could not have been possible for such experiences as are 
now told to have been told in that way. They may all 
differ in the details, and must therefore be told, listened 
to, and decided upon separately. Say, then, how long 
would it have taken to hear three thousand of them in 
that way ? We have seen the inexorable law that every 
tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, and that with 
the mouth confession is made unto salvation ; hence the 
presentation of difficulties can not set aside the positive 
law as long as there remains a possibility that the law was 
obeyed. The objector must show that obedience to the 
law was impossible before we are at liberty to presume 
that it was not obeyed, and even then the impossibility 
might constitute an exception to the law, but not an abro- 
gation of it. 

Were it profitable, we might entertain the reader with 
a feast of fat things sometimes narrated in those so- 
called experiences, but we forbear. We beg permission, 
however, to suggest a few plain questions for the re- 
flection of our readers before leaving this branch of our 
subject: 

If the belief of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is 
the faith that overcomes the world, will believing that He 
is the very and eternal God do the same thing ? If this is 
what must be confessed with the mouth unto salvation, 
after faith and before baptism, and it is not made, will we 
get the salvation unto which it should have been made ? 
If Timothy made this good confession for eternal life, 
may we dispense with it, and still get the eternal life for 
which he made it ? If God has determined that every 
tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of 
God the Father, and we fail to make it unto our salvation, 
will we not have to make it in the final day to our eternal 
condemnation ? If Jesus has promised to confess before 



2CO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

His Father such as confess Him before men, will He still 
confess us if we fail to confess Him ? If God dwells in 
those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, will He 
also dwell in those who do not confess this fact ? Does 
not the language imply that He only dwells in such as 
make this confession ? If this is what has to be con- 
fessed, will it be safe to substitute a narrative of our 
dreams, feelings, and imaginations in the shape of an expe- 
rience instead of the confession required by the law of the 
Lord ? And if these dreams, feelings, and imaginations 
constitute all the confession made prior to baptism, when 
do the parties confess that yesns Christ is the Son of God, 
or that Jesus is Lord,, to the glory of God the Father, to 
their own salvation, and for eternal life, and which secures 
the dwelling of God in those who make it ? 

But we have said that in the earlier ages of the church 
persons were baptized upon a simple confession of their 
faith in Jesus Christ. Neander says: "At the beginning, 
when it was important that the church should rapidly ex- 
tend itself, those who confessed their belief in Jesus as the 
Messiah (among the Jews), or their belief in one God, and 
in Jesus as the Messiah (among the Gentiles), were im- 
mediately baptized, as appears from the New Testament. 
Gradually it came to be thought necessary that those who 
wished to be received into the Christian Church should be 
subjected to a more careful preparatory instruction, and 
a stricter examination." — Neander's History of the Church, 
vol. i, p. 385. 

Thus we have the testimony of this distinguished his- 
torian that in primitive times all that was required was 
that the candidate should confess his faith in the fact that 
Jesus was the Messiah. How long before this scriptural 
confession was abandoned he does not tell us, but it was 
gradual. Hence, as far as his authority goes, it shows 



THE CONFESSION. 26 1 

what the New Testament confession was, and certainly 
the church had no right to change it. 

Dr. Robinson says : " Among primitive Christians there 
was an uniform belief that Jesus was the Christ, and a per- 
fect harmony of affection." — Benedict's History, vol. i, p. 99. 

Again : " These churches were all composed of reputed 
believers, who had been baptized by immersion on the 
profession of their faith." — Ibid, p. 8. 

Mosheim says : " Whoever acknowledged Christ as the 
Saviour of mankind, and made a solemn profession of his 
confidence in him, was immediately baptized and received 
into the church." — Maclain's Mosheim, First Century, p. 38. 
Part II, chap. 2, sec. 7. 

Again, p. 42, chap, iii, sec. 5, he says: "In the earliest 
times of the church all who' professed firmly to believe that 
yesus was the only Redeemer of the world, and who, in con- 
sequence of this profession, promised to live in a manner 
conformable to the purity of his holy religion, were imme- 
diately received among the disciples of Christ." 

These quotations might be extended almost indefinitely, 
but the foregoing are deemed sufficient to show that in 
primitive times the only confession demanded was a belief 
in the fact that Jesus CJunst was the Son of God. As this 
was the confession authorized of the Lord, and required by 
the apostles and primitive Christians, who is authorized to 
demand any thing else now ? Can we improve upon the 
work of the Lord ? Surely, it is more safe to keep within 
the boundary prescribed in the New Testament. Has a 
church the right to determine whether or not a sinner may 
obey the Lord? Surely not; yet this is just what is as- 
sumed. A man wishes to be baptized in obedience to the 
Lord, but the church must hear his experience, and deter- 
mine whether or not it is genuine before they will permit 
him to be baptized. And they decide upon the value of 



262 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

his experience, not by its approximation to the divine 
models given in the New Testament, but by comparing it 
with their own ; and if his feelings have been like theirs, he 
is accepted, otherwise he is rejected. Paul says : " We 
dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare our- 
selves with some that commend themselves ; but they, 
measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing them- 
selves among themselves, are not wise." 2 Cor. x : 12. 
Now, if these persons are not doing just the thing here 
pronounced unwise when comparing experiences, then we 
know not how they may do so. However much the man 
may desire to obey God, he can not be permitted to do so 
unless his experience is like that of each one who decides 
upon the merits of his. Who has the right to come be- 
tween the sinner and his God and say he may or may not 
obey what God hath enjoined upon him ? Surely, this is 
a most fearful responsibility. Nor is this the worst feat- 
ure of the case ; for however anxious a man may be to 
submit to baptism, and however anxious the administrator 
may be to wait upon him, he dare not do it until the 
church is convened to pass upon the merits of the expe- 
rience. Was this the custom anciently ? When the eu- 
nuch demanded baptism at the hands of Philip, the latter 
did not think of convening the church to hear and decide 
upon the experience of the candidate, but he said : " If 
thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest ;" and when 
the eunuch said, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God," Philip proceeded at once to baptize him, without 
waiting to know what the church thought of it, or whether 
this was like theirs, yea or nay. It was what the Lord 
required, and this was enough for him. 

Nor is the church any less liable to be imposed upon 
by these experiences than by a simple confession of faith 
in Christ. If the man be insincere, he can just as easily 



THE CONFESSION. 263 

fabricate a narrative of falsehoods suited to his purpose 
as he could falsely confess his faith in Jesus Christ. Is 
man capable of improving upon the plan instituted by 
the Lord ? If so, why could he not devise a system of 
salvation without invoking the wisdom of heaven at all? 
And if we may introduce such an addition to the con- 
fession, where will such interpolations stop ? If the word 
of God is perfect, let us come to it, and be satisfied 
with it. 



CHAPTER XII. 

BAPTISM. 

THE subject of baptism has engaged the attention of 
many of the wisest heads, and employed the tongues 
and pens of many of the ablest speakers and writers that 
have blessed the world by their labors since the days of 
the Apostles. In the examination of a subject upon which 
there has been so much spoken and written, it will not be 
expected that we shall be able to present a single thought 
that has not been presented in some shape by some one 
who has preceded us. If there is a subject connected 
with man's salvation that has been exhausted, surely this 
one has. We have read every thing that has come in our 
way on the subject, and have profited especially by the 
writings of Campbell, Carson, Conant, Boothe, Gayle, 
Hinton, Bailey, and Stewart, whose works we have by us 
at this writing ; but we will write just as though nothing 
had ever been written on the subject before, presenting 
every thing we may deem important to a thorough exam- 
ination of the subject in our own way, without regard to the 
source from which we learned it, whether from the Bible 
or the writings of men tried by the Bible. If we speak not 
as the oracles of God speak, then prove all things and hold 
fast that which is good. First, then, we inquire : 

What is Baptism ? 

When Jesus commanded his disciples to teach all na 
(264) 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 265 

tions, baptizing them, did He mean any thing ? if so, what ? 
It is scarcely necessary to say to the reader that the words 
baptist, baptism, baptize, baptized, and baptizing are all 
Greek words anglicized in termination to satisfy the de- 
mands of English euphony, and transferred (not translated) 
to our version of the sacred Scriptures ; hence, if we would 
comprehend the subject, we must learn correctly the mean- 
ing of these words, not as defined by authors whose works 
are made to reflect the faith of the party to which they 
belong, but we must get at their import at the time the 
Saviour and the inspired speakers and writers employed 
them. 

The word baptisma, rendered baptism, occurs in the New 
Testament twenty-two times. The word baptismos occurs 
four times, three times rendered washing and. once baptism. 
Baptistees occurs fourteen times connected with John, and 
is rendered baptist. Baptidzo occurs eighty times, seventy- 
eight times rendered baptize, baptized, etc., and one time each 
wash and washing. This family of words is derived from 
bapto, and each derivative partakes of the primary import 
of this word. It occurs five times in the New Testament, 
and embapto once. Matt, xxvi : 23, Mark xiv : 20, Luke 
xvi : 24, John xviii : 26 (twice), and Rev. xix : 13. This 
word is never used to indicate baptism, and hence is not 
transferred but translated every time; hence you will find 
it dip, dippeth, dipped. Language has no law that is better 
established than that derivative words inherit the radical 
form and primary meaning of the words from which they 
are derived. This being so, and the primary meaning of 
bapto being dip, does it not follow that its derivative bap- 
tidzo must be rendered dip, imme?'se, or by some word 
equivalent thereto ? If baptism may be performed by 
sprinkling or pouring, is it not strange that we never have 
bapt'dzo, the word used to indicate it, rendered sprinkle ox 



266 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

pour? These words often occur in the sacred Scriptures, 
but never from the word baptidzo. Sprinkle is always from 
its own representative raino, and pour from cheo. 

While the primary meaning of bapto, and, per conse- 
quence, of its derivative baptidzo, is to dip, immerse, over- 
whelm, the meaning of sprinkle is to scatter in drops, and 
pour to turn out in a stream. As well might we to expect 
purely English parentage to produce a progeny of baboons 
and monkeys as for baptidzo, or any other word derived 
from bapto, to mean sprinkle or pour. 

Worcester, in his unabridged Dictionary, first defines 
the Greek word baptismos " a dipping," and then proceeds 
to define the same word (less two letters) as an English 
word thus : " Act of baptizing, a Christian rite or sacra- 
ment, symbolical of initiation into the church and conse- 
cration to a pure life ; performed by immersion, ablution, or 
sprinkling, and accompanied with a form .of words." Now, 
how are we to reconcile his definition of baptismos, "a dip- 
ping," with his definition of baptism, " performed by im- 
mersion, ablution, or sprinkling ?" The former is the 
primitive meaning of the Greek when Jesus used it to in- 
dicate His will, the latter is the modern abuse of the term 
defined in accommodation to present usage. The Greek 
baptidzo he defines " to dip or merge," and then defines 
baptize " to administer baptism to ; to immerse in water, 
or to sprinkle with water, in token of initiation into the 
Christian church ; to- christen." Here again we see that 
the word employed by the Lord means to dip or merge, 
while its modernized equivalent means to immerse or 
sprinkle. 

Webster, in his unabridged Dictionary, defines " baptisma 
baptismos, from baptidzein, to baptize, from baptein, to dip 
in water." Then he defines baptism as from these-: "The 
act of baptizing, the application of water to a person, as a 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 267 

sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated 
into the visible church of Christ. This is usually per- 
formed by sprinkling or immersion." When defining the 
Greek it means to dip, but in these days it is usually per- 
formed by sprinkling or immersion ! Can dipping be done 
by sprinkling ? 

We introduce these authors, not for the purpose of ob- 
jecting to them, for they were bound to define words as 
used when they wrote, but we introduce them, first, to 
show the marked difference between the Greek words em- 
ployed by inspiration and the modern abuse of them ; and, 
secondly, that we may have the benefit of their authority 
in showing that the Greek, from which we have the words 
in controversy, means to dip or immerse. Had there been 
any such meanings as sprinkle and pour in the Greek, 
surely they would have found them, and the definitions 
they give to the anglicized equivalents show that had they 
found them they would have given them. Ours is a living, 
growing, and, therefore, a changing language, and the im- 
port of adopted words is as liable to be changed by usage 
as native English words. Surely, it would have astonished 
the Greek writers of eighteen hundred years 'ago to have 
found a definition to baptisma, like those given to baptism 
by Webster and Worcester, saying, " it may be performed 
by immersion, ablution, or sprinkling." But let us exam- 
ine the works of those whose peculiar business it is to de- 
fine Greek words : 

1. Pickering defines baptidzo "to dip, immerse, sub- 
merge, plunge, sink, overwhelm ; to steep, to soak, to wet, 
to wash one's self, or bathe." 

2. Groves: "Baptidzo (from bapto, to dip), to dip, im- 
merse, immerge, plunge ; to wash, cleanse, purify." 

Mr. Groves and many others show that baptidzo comes 
from bapto, to dip ; hence, however numerous the meanings 



268 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of bapto, baptidzo inherits only the primary meaning dip, 
in accordance with the law already laid down. 

3. Robjnson : " Baptidzo — to immerse, to sink ; for ex- 
ample, spoken of ships, galleys, etc. In the New Testa- 
ment, to wash, to cleanse by washing ; to wash one's self, 
to bathe, perform ablution," etc. 

Mr. Robinson was a Presbyterian and gives the primary 
meaning of the word baptidzo to immerse, and then gives 
the meanings wash, cleanse, etc., from the New Testament, 
from such passages as do not speak of baptism, and where 
the word is translated, as Mark vii : 4, Luke xi : 38. 

4. Liddell and Scott: " Baptidzo (from bapto) — to dip 
repeatedly ; of ships, to sink them ; to bathe. Bebaptis- 
menoi — soaked in wine, over head and ears in debt, a boy 
drowned with questions ; to draw water, to baptize. Bap- 
tisma — that which is dipped. For e. g., New Testament." 

In the first American edition of Liddell and Scott's 
Lexicon, baptidzo was defined, "to dip repeatedly, dip 
under, to steep, to wet, soaked in wine, to pour upon, to 
drench, over head and ears in debt." But in subsequent 
editions, " to steep, to wet, to pour upon, and to drench," 
are expunged. 

In a discussion at Flat Creek, our opponent read these 
definitions from his edition of Liddell and Scott, remark- 
ing that this work had been tampered with by immersion- 
ists until it is difficult to tell when we have the real defini- 
tions of the authors — that it is likely an edition will be pre- 
sented not having pour upon in its definition of baptidzo. 
When asked who was the editor of his edition, he said, 
" Drisler." Drisler is the editor of our edition, and, as far 
as we are informed, is the only American editor who has 
ever published Liddell and Scott. So it is certain that the 
same editor had control of the work when pour upon 
was in the definition, and when it came out ; and could 






WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 269 

such a definition have been verified by examples it would 
doubtless have been retained. As it could not be sus- 
tained and had to come out, it is quite clear that sectarian- 
ism put it there and would have kept it there if any such 
meaning belonged to the word. 

5. Donnegan : " Baptidzo — to immerse repeatedly into a 
liquid, to submerge ; to soak thoroughly, to saturate, hence 
to drench with wine. Metaphorically, to confound totally ; 
to dip in a vessel and draw. Passive, to be immersed." 

Some lexicographers regard the termination "zo" as zfre- 
quentative, indicating a repetition of the act ; hence they 
define baptidzo "to dip repeatedly." But Moses Stewart, 
a justly celebrated Presbyterian critic, in his work on bap- 
tism, has clearly shown this to be an error. Indeed, those 
who oppose us can not base an objection on this hypoth- 
esis, for then would they have to repeat their sprinkling as 
often as we our immersion. 

6. Schrevellius, whose definitions are given in Latin, 
defines baptidzo, " baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo /" which we 
translate, I baptize, I immerse, I cleanse, I wash. 

The foregoing definitions we have taken directly from 
the original works of the authors quoted. The definitions 
following we collate from debates where they were pre- 
sented in presence of opponents competent to have exposed 
any want of fidelity to the works from which they were 
taken. That they are correct we have no doubt. 

7. Scapula: "Baptidzo — to dip, to immerse; also, to 
submerge or overwhelm, to wash, to cleanse." 

8. Stephanus : " Bapto and baptidzo — to dip or immerge, 
as we dip things for the purpose of dyeing them, or im- 
merge them in water." 

9. Robertson : " Baptidzo — to immerse, to wash." 

10. Pasor : "Bapto et baptidzo — to dip immerse, to 
dye, because it is done by immersing. It differs from 



270 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

dunai, which means to sink to the bottom and to be thor- 
oughly submerged." 

" Metaphorically, in Matthew, afflictions are compared to. 
a flood of waters, in which they seem to be immersed who 
are overwhelmed with the miseries and misfortunes of life, 
yet only so overwhelmed as to emerge again." 

1 1. Parkhurst : " Baptidzo — to immerse in or wash with 
water, in token of purification." " Figuratively, to be im- 
mersed or plunged into a flood or sea, as it were of griev- 
ous afflictions and suffering." 

12. Bretschneider : "Baptidzo — properly, often to dip, 
often to wash ; to wash, to cleanse ; in the middle voice, 
I wash or cleanse myself. An entire immersion belongs 
to the nature of baptism. This is the meaning of the 
word ; for in baptidzo is contained the idea of a complete 
immersion under water ; at least so is baptisma in the New 
Testament. In the New Testament baptidzo is not used 
unless concerning the sacred and solemn submersion, 
which the Jews used." 

"Baptisma — immersion, submersion. In the New Testa- 
ment it is used only concerning the sacred submersion, 
which the Fathers call baptism." 

13. Suidas : "Baptidzo — to sink, to plunge, immerse, 
wet, wash, cleanse, purify." 

14. Greenfield: "Baptidzo means to immerse, im- 
merge, submerge, sink." In New Testament, " to wash, 
perform ablution, cleanse ; to immerse, baptize, and perform 
the rite of baptism." 

15. Bass : " Baptidzo — to dip, immerse, plunge in water; 
to bathe one's self; to be immersed in sufferings or afflic- 
tions." 

16. Dr. John Jones : "Baptidzo — I plunge, I plunge in 
water, dip, baptize, bury, overwhelm." 

17. Wahl : "Baptidzo (from bapto — to immerse; more 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 27 1 

frequently, to immerse in N. T.) To immerse (always 
in Josephus, Ant. IX, 10, 2, etc. Polyb. etc.) Properly 
and truly concerning sacred immersion." 

1 8. Hedericus : " Baptidzo — I plunge, immerse, over- 
whelm in water, I cleanse, wash, I baptize, in a sacred 
sense. Baptisma — immersion, dipping, baptism. Bap- 
tistees — one who immerses, who washes ; one who baptizes ; 
a baptizer. 

19. Ewing : a Baptidzo — in its primary and radical 
sense, I cover with water or some other fluid, in whatever 
manner this is done, whether by immersion or affusion, 
wholly or partially, permanently, or for a moment ; and in 
the passive voice, I am covered with water or some other 
fluid, in some manner or other. Hence, the word is used 
in several different senses, referring either mediately or 
immediately to the primary idea. It. is used to denote, 
First : I plunge or sink completely under water. Second : 
I cover partially with water, I wet. Third : I overwhelm or 
cover with water by rushing, flowing, or pouring upon. 
And in the passive voice, I am overwhelmed or covered 
with water in that mode. Fourth : I drench or impreg- 
nate with liquor by affusion. Fifth : I oppress or over- 
whelm, in a metaphorical sense, by bringing afflictions or 
distresses upon. Sixth : I wash, in general, without speci- 
fying the mode. Seventh : I wash for the special purpose 
of symbolical, ritual, or ceremonial purification. Eighth : 
I administer the ordinance of Christian baptism ; I 
baptize." 

20. Vossius : "Baptidzo — to baptize, signifies to plunge. 
It certainly, therefore, signifies more than epi polazin, which 
is to swim lightly on top, and less than duneifi, which is to 
sink to the bottom so as to be destroyed." 

21. Trommius : "Baptidzo — to baptize, to immerse, 
to dip." 



272 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

22. Bagster : " Baptidzo — to dip, to immerse, to cleanse, 
or purify by washing, to administer the rite of baptism, to 
baptize. 

" Baptisma — immersion, baptism, ordinance of baptism. 
" Baptismos — an act of dipping or immersing." 

23. Sophocles: " Baptidzo — to dip, to immerse; sink, 
to be drowned (as the effect of sinking), to sink. Trop., 
to afflict ; soaked in liquor ; to be drunk, intoxicated." 

24. Leigh: "Baptidzo — the native and proper signifi- 
cation of baptidzo, is to dip in water, or to plunge under 
water." 

25. Richardson : "Baptidzo — to dip or merge in water, 
to sink, to plunge or immerse." 

26. Schottgenius : "Baptidzo, from bapto — properly, to 
plunge, to immerse, to cleanse, to wash." 

27. Castel : " Baptidzo — to bathe, baptize, immerse." 

28. Constantine : " Baptismos — baptism, the act of 
dyeing ; that is, of plunging." 

29. Minhert : * Baptidzo — to baptize ; properly, indeed, 
it signifies to immerse, to plunge, to dip in water. But 
because it is common to plunge or dip a thing to wash it, 
hence it signifies also to wash, to wash away. 

"Baptisma — immersion, dipping into, washing, washing 
away ; properly, and according to its etymology, it denotes 
that washing that is done by immersion." 

30. Boyster : "Baptidzo — to dip, to immerse, to cleanse, 
or purify by washing, to administer the rite of baptism, to 
baptize. (See Braden and Hughey Debate, p. 75.) 

"Baptisma — immersion, ordinance of baptism." 

31. Suicer : "Baptidzo — properly denotes an immersion 
or dipping into." 

32. Anthon : Dr. Anthon, though not a lexicographer, 
as a scholar has no superior in America. He says : "The 
primary meaning of the word {baptidzo) is dip or immerse, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 273 

and its secondary meanings, if it ever had any, all refer to 
the same leading idea. Sprinkling, pouring, etc., are en- 
tirely out of the question." 

33. Stokius : Stokius defines in Latin, and is supposed 
to give some comfort to those who practice affusion and 
aspersion. The plan of his work is somewhat different 
from other lexicographers, as indicated in the title page, 
which we give, as follows : " Clavis of Christian Stokius, 
Professor in Public Academy at Jena ; Opening the way 
to the sacred tongue of the New Testament ; exhibiting, 
in convenient order, first, the general and then the special 
meanings of words ; assisting especially the studies (or 
efforts) as well of tyros as of the cultivators of homilitics 
and exegesis ; and then supplying the place of concord- 
ances with an index of words. Fourth edition, enlarged 
and improved." 

By this it will be seen that he gives, first, the general 
and then the specific meanings. Hence he defines baptidzo 
" to wash, to baptize," and then proceeds to define the 
word specifically as follows : " Generally, and by force of 
the word, it obtains the notion of a dipping and an im- 
mersion. Second : Specifically and properly, it is to im- 
merse or to dip into water. Figuratively, by metalepsis, 
it is to wash, to cleanse, because a thing is accustomed to 
be dipped or immersed in water that it may be washed or 
cleansed ; although washing or cleansing can and is accus- 
tomed to be done by sprinkling water." [Thus we see 
how it is that baptidzo comes to mean wash, because things 
are accustomed to be dipped that they may be washed.] 

" Baptisma — baptism : I. Generally, and by force of its 
origin, it denotes immersion or dipping. 2. Specifically, 
properly it denotes the immersion or dipping of a thing 
into water that it may be cleansed or washed ; hence, it is 
transferred to designating the first sacrament of the New 



274 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Testament, which they call [the sacrament] of initiation — 
namely, baptism, in which those to be baptized were for- 
merly immersed into water ; though at this day the water is 
only sprinkled upon them, that they may be cleansed from 
the pollutions of sin, obtain the remission of it, and be 
received into the covenant of grace as heirs of eternal life. 
3. By metaphor, it signifies the miraculous effusion of the 
Holy Spirit upon the apostles and other believers, not only 
on account of the abundance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, 
just as formerly water was abundantly poured upon those 
baptized, or they were immersed deep into the water, but 
also on account of the efficacy and virtue of the Holy 
Spirit, which, like living water, refreshes in heart, cleanses 
from filth, and purifies." 

Thus we have given a perfectly literal translation of the 
Latin of Stokius, made directly from his original work, 
that the reader may have the full benefit of it. He shows 
clearly that baptidzo primarily means to dip or immerse, 
and that it means to wash only because things are accus- 
tomed to be dipped that they may be washed. Nor is this 
all ; he most clearly shows that the custom of the present 
day is a departure from the original practice. As to when, 
how, and by whom this departure from primitive practice 
was introduced we will see at the proper time. He also 
shows that persons were baptized, in early times, that they 
might be cleansed from the pollutions of sin and obtain 
the remission of it. Will the reader remember this when 
we come to examine the design of baptism ? 

34. Schleusner : " Baptidzo — properly, I immerse, 
and I dip {intingo), I sink into the water. From bapto, 
and corresponds to the Hebrew tabal ; 2 Kings v : 14, 
in the Alexandrian version ; to tabang, in the writings 
of Symmachus, Psalmody 68 : 5, in anonymous Psalm- 
ody, 9 : 6. But it is never used in this signification in 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 275 

the New Testament, but is frequently thus used in Greek 
writers. * * * Now, because a thing is accustomed to be 
immersed, or dipped in water, that it may be washed, 
hence it marks (or denotes) I cleanse, I wash, I purge with 
water ; thus it is used in Mark vii : 4. * * * Jesus did not 
wash himself before dinner. Luke xi : 38. 

" Metaphorically, as in Latin, I wet, or I soak, I give and 
supply largely and copiously, I pour forth abundantly; e.g. 
Matt, iii : 1 1. 'He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit 
and fire.' 

"It can be proved that baptidzesthei, in many places, 
signifies, not only to be washed, but also that one wash 
himself. 

" Baptisma — baptism; a verbal noun from the passive 
participle of bebaptisma, of the verb baptidzo, (1) properly, 
immersion, dipping into water, a washing. Hence, it is 
transferred to the sacred rite which, par excellence, is 
called baptism, in which formerly those to be baptized were 
plunged into water that they might be bound to the 
true divine religion. Thus it is used concerning the bap- 
tism which John the Baptist administered by divine com- 
mand (Matt, iii : 7, Luke vii : 29), which, par excellence, is 
called the baptism of repentance, because he bound men 
to a willing obedience to God and an emendation of their 
spirits. Here, truly, it should be observed that the ex- 
pression 'the baptism of John' has sometimes a wider sig- 
nification, and by synecdoche it signifies the whole func- 
tion, institution, and doctrine of John the Baptist. * * * 
By metaphor, the heaviest afflictions and calamities were 
endured on account of religion, in which those who sus- 
tained them were as if they were submerged, which for- 
merly were not improperly called a baptism in blood. 

" Baptismos — a washing, cleansing, purification." 

As Schleusner's Lexicon, like that of Stokius, is in pos- 



2y6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

session of but very few, and is not published in America, 
making it almost impossible to purchase it ^without an 
order to London, we have given a literal translation, made 
directly from the Latin of his work. And as his language 
is most cruelly perverted, and those who have not the 
lexicon are imposed upon by those who are willing to 
support a favorite dogma at the expense of truth, we have 
given all he has said which we regard at all calculated to 
throw any light on the subject. His definition of baptidzo 
is quoted thus : " Properly to immerse or dip, to plunge 
into water, from bapto ** but in this sense it never occurs 
in the New Testament." See Louisville Debate, page 487. 
It was also thus used in debate with us at Flat Creek. 
By leaving out the words to which the author refers when 
he says " in this sense it never occurs in the New Testa- 
ment," he is made to say that baptidzo never occurs in 
the sense of immerse, dip, or plunge into water, in the 
New Testament. By reference to his definition it will be 
seen that he says in the sense of tabang it is never used 
in the New Testament. Tabang means to sink, to be sunk, 
immersed, as in mire or a pit ; and the examples referred 
to are cases where baptidzo is used in this sense, without 
any reference to emersion from that into which the immer- 
sion occurred. The author's definition of the noun bap- 
tisma (which was left out in the debates referred to), shows 
that because it does mean immerse, dipping, etc., it is trans- 
ferred to the sacred rite which, par excellence, is called 
baptism, in which those formerly to be baptized were 
plunged into water. Thus Schleusner was made to say 
just the opposite to what he did say. Certainly the whole 
weight of his authority is in favor of immersion as 
baptism. 

Thus we have the definition of baptidzo from thirty-four 
lexicons, most if not all of which were made by Pedobap- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 277 

tists, and with great unanimity they give dip, immerse, or 
some equivalent word as its primary meaning. Surely, if 
authority can settle the meaning of a word, the settled 
meaning of baptidzo is to dip or immerse. 

But we have the testimony of other profound scholars 
who have incidentally defined the word baptidzo when 
writing on other subjects. At the risk of wearying our 
readers we will hear them also: 

i. Michaelis : "To baptize, to immerse, to bathe." 

2. Schaaf : " To bathe one's self, to bathe, to dip, im- 
merse in water, baptize." 

3. Guido Fabricus : " To baptize, dip, bathe." 

4. Buxtorf : " To baptize, dip, bathe one's self." 

5. Schindler : "To baptize, dip, bathe, immerse in 
water." 

6. Paschal Auscher : " To baptize, to wash by plung- 
ing in water." 

7. Mekitar Vartabed : The same as Auscher. 

8. Encyclopedia Americana: "Baptism, that is, dip- 
ping, immersion, from the Greek word baptidzo." 

9. Edinburgh Encyclopedia : " In the times of the 
apostles the act was very simple. The person was dipped 
in water." 

10. Kitto's Encyclopedia: "The whole person was 
immersed in water." 

11. Alstedius : " Baptidzein signifies only to immerse, 
and not to wash, except by consequence." 

12. Wilson : "Baptize, to dip in water, or plunge one 
into water." 

13. Dr. William Young: "To dip all over, to wash, 
to baptize." 

14. Bailey : " Baptism, in strictness of speech, is that 
kind of ablution or washing which consists in dipping, 
and, when applied to the Christian institution, it was used 



278 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

by the early Christians in no other way than that of dip- 
ping, as the learned Grotius and Casaubon observe." 

15. Butterworth renders baptidzo "to dip, immerse, 
or plunge." Bliss' Let., p. 16. 

16. John Ash's Dictionary, London, 1776, renders 
baptize " to dip, plunge, to overwhelm, to administer bap- 
tism." 

17. Brande's Encyclopedia of Science, Literature, and 
Art, article Baptism : " Bapto — I dip. Baptism was orig- 
inally administered by immersion. At present sprinkling 
is generally substituted for dipping — at least in northern 
climates." 

18. Beza : "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by 
which word it is certain immersion is signified. To be 
baptized in water signifies no other than to be immersed 
in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism." 

19. Altingius : "Baptism is immersion when the whole 
body is immersed, but the term baptism is never used con- 
cerning aspersion." 

20. Bishop Bassuet : " To baptize signifies to plunge, 
as is granted by all the world." 

21. Hospinianus : "Christ commanded us to be bap- 
tized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified." 

22. Gurtlerus : "To baptize, among the Greeks, is 
undoubtedly to immerse, to dip ; and baptism is immer- 
sion, dipping. The thing commanded by our Lord is 
baptism, immersion in water." 

23. Buddeus : "The words baptizein and baptismos are 
not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always of immersion." 

24. Venema : " The word baptizein, to baptize, is no- 
where used in the Scripture for sprinkling." 

25. Professor Fritschi : " Baptism was performed, not 
by sprinkling, but by immersion ; this is evident not only 
from the nature of the word, but from Rom. vi : 4." 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 279 

26. Prof. Porson : "The Baptists have the advantage 
of us ; baptism signifies a total immersion." 

27. Cattenburgh : "In baptism the whole body is 
ordered to be immersed.' , 

28. Keckermanus : " We can not deny that the first 
institution of baptism consisted in immersion, and not 
sprinkling." 

29. Stourdza, a native Greek : " The verb baptizo has 
only one acceptation. It literally and perpetually signifies 
to plunge. Baptism and immersion, therefore, are identi- 
cal ; and to say baptism by aspersion is as if one should 
say immersion by aspersion, or utter any other contradic- 
tion of the same nature." 

30. Jeremiah, the Greek Patriarch : " The ancients 
were not accustomed to sprinkle the candidate, but to im- 
merse him." 

31. Daniel Rogers: "That the minister is to dip in 
water, the word denotes it. None of old were wont to be 
sprinkled." 

32. Bishop Jeremy Taylor : " The custom of the an- 
cient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion — in pur- 
suance of the sense of the word in the commandment and 
the example of our blessed Saviour." 

33. Dr. Geo. Campbell: "The word baptizein, both in 
sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, 
to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of 
the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, 
which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably 
to this meaning." 

34. Drs. Storr and Flatt's Theology : " The disci- 
ples of our Lord could understand his command in no other 
manner than as enjoining immersion. Under these circum- 
stances, it is certainly to be lamented that Luther was not 
able to accomplish his wish with regard to the introduction 



280 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of immersion in baptism, as he had done in the restora- 
tion of the wine in the eucharist." 

35. London Quarterly Review: "There can be no 
question that the original form of baptism — the very mean- 
ing of the word — was a complete immersion in the deep 
baptismal waters, and that, for at least four centuries, any 
other form was either unknown or else regarded as excep- 
tional, almost a monstrous case." 

36. Curcellius : " Baptism was performed by plunging 
the whole body into water, and not by sprinkling a few 
drops, as is now the practice. Nor did the disciples that 
were sent out by Christ administer baptism afterwards in 
ci7iy other way? 

37. Martin Luther: "The term baptism is a Greek 
word ; it may be rendered into Latin by mersio— when we 
immerse any thing in water, that it may be entirely cov- 
ered with water. And though this custom be quite abol- 
ished among the generality (for neither do they entirely dip 
children, but only sprinkle them with a little water), never- 
theless they ought to be wholly immersed, and immediately 
to be drawn out again, for the etymology of the word seems 
to require it." 

38. Knapp's Theology: " Baptisma, from baptizein, 
which properly signifies to dip in, to wash by immersion." 

39. Dr. Bloomfield, on Mark i : 9 : " The sense of 'was 
baptized in ' is ' was dipped or plunged into! He underwent 
the rite of baptism by being plunged into the water." 

40. Vetringa : "The act of baptizing is the immersion 
of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. 
Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles." 

41. Prof. Moses Stuart: " Bapto and baptizo mean to 
dip, plunge, or immerse into any thing liquid. All lexi- 
cographers and critics of any note are agreed in this." 

42. Calvin : " The word baptize signifies to immerse, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 28 1 

and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient 
church." 

43. Witsius : " It can not be denied that the native sig- 
nification of the words baptein and baptizein is to plunge, 
to dip." 

44. Zanchius : " The proper signification of baptize is to 
immerse, plunge under, overwhelm in water." 

45. Dr. Chalmers : " The original meaning of the word 
baptism is immersion, and, though we regard it as a point 
of indifference whether the ordinance so named be per- 
formed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that 
the prevalent style of administration in the apostles' days 
was by an actual submerging of the whole body under 
water." 

46. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible : " Baptisma, 
baptism (the word baptismos occurs only four times, viz : 
Mark vii : 4, 8, Heb. vi : 2, ix: 10.) The verb baptidzein 
(from baptein, to dip) is the rendering of the Hebrew by 
the LXX, in 2 Kings v: 14. The Latin fathers render 
baptidzein by tingere, mergere, and mergitare. By the Greek 
fathers the word baptidzein is often used, frequently figu- 
ratively, for to immerse or overwhelm with sleep, sorrow, 
sin, etc. Hence baptisma properly and literally means 
immersion!' 

47. Pictet : "They immerse the whole body in water in 
order that the baptized might be counted a child of the 
covenant. Now, John (the Baptist) administered the rite 
among the Jews in the manner above described, and the 
same rite was used by Christ." 

48. Salmasius : "Baptism is immersion, and was ad- 
ministered in former times according to the force and 
meaning of the word." R. Fuller, p. 20. " Baptism signi- 
fies immersion, not aspersion, nor did the ancients baptize 
any but by dipping." Witsius' Works, vol. iii, pp. 390, 391. 

24 



282 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

49. Augusti : " The word baptism, according to ety- 
mology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, etc., 
and the choice of the expression betrays an age in which 
the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced." 

50. Brenner : " The word corresponds in signification 
with the German taufen, to sink in the deep." 

51. Paullus : "The word baptize signifies in Greek 
sometimes to immerse, sometimes to submerge." 

52. Scholz : " Baptism consists in the immersion of the 
whole body in water." 

53. Ikenius : "The Greek word baptismos denotes the 
immersion of a person or a thing into something." 

54. Casaubon : " To baptize is to immerse." Fuller, 
p. 72. " This was the rite of baptizing that persons were 
plunged into the water, which the very word baptizein } to 
baptize, sufficiently declares." Judson, p. n. 

55. Christophulus, a Greek : " We follow the examples 
of the apostles, who immersed the candidate under the 
water." 

56. Ridgeley : "The original and natural signification 
of the word baptize imports to dip." 

57. Limborch : "Baptism consists in washing or rather 
immersing the whole body in water, as was customary in 
primitive times." 

58. Sir John Floyer : " Immersion is no circumstance 
but the very act of baptism." 

59. Poole's Continuators : " To be baptized is to be 
dipped in water ; metaphorically, to be plunged in afflic- 
tions." 

60. Valesius, in his edition of Eusebius' Eccl. Hist, 
speaking of the pouring of water all over Novatian while 
he was sick, says : " Moreover, since baptism properly sig- 
nifies immersion, such perfusion (pouring over) could 
hardly be called baptism." 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 283 

61. Coleman: "The term baptism is derived from the 
Greek word bapto, from which term is formed baptizo, with 
its derivatives baptismos and baptisma, baptism. The 
primary signification of the original is to dip, to plunge, 
immerse. The obvious import of the noun is immersion.'' 

62. Edinburgh Reviewers : " They tell me (says Car- 
son) that it was unnecessary to bring forward any of the 
examples to prove that the word signifies to dip, that I 
might have commenced with this as a fixed point univer- 
sally admitted!' 

63. Wetstenius : " To baptize is to plunge, to dip. The 
body, or part of the body being under water, is said to be 
baptized." 

64. Melancthon : " Baptism is an entire action ; to wit : 
a dipping and a pronouncing the words I baptize," etc. 

6$. Isaac Barrow : " The action is baptizing or im- 
mersing in water." 

66. Burmannus : " Baptismos and baptisma, if you con- 
sider the etymology, properly signifies immersion." 

67. Richard Bently : " Baptismos — baptism, dipping." 

68. Beckmanus : " Baptism, according to the force of its 
etymology, is immersion and washing or dipping." 

69. Bucanus : " Baptism, that is, immersion, and by 
consequence washing. Baptistery, a vat or large vessel of 
wood or stone, in which we are immersed for the sake of 
washing. Baptist, one that immerses or dips." 

70. Otto Von Gerlach : "The Greek word (baptizo) 
properly signifies dip. Baptism was performed in the first 
times of Christianity by immersion in water." 

The foregoing quotations are mostly from Bailey's Man- 
ual, where he gives references to the works from which 
they are taken, many of which we have examined and 
know that they are correct. Added to the lexicographers 
quoted, they make one hundred and four scholars who say, 



284 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

one and all, that the word used by the Lord to indicate 
the act required by Him of those who would become obe- 
dient to His will, primarily and literally means to dip or 
immerse. He who will not be satisfied with this testi- 
mony would not likely be satisfied by the presentation of 
much more that might be adduced. 

We propose next to examine the use of the term by 
those who lived before, during, and subsequent to the time 
when Christ and the apostles used it. Carson, Stuart, and 
Conant have given us perhaps every known occurrence of 
the word in the whole range of Greek literature. Dr. 
Conant, in his "Baptizein," has given two hundred and 
thirty-six examples of its use, of which he says : " The ex- 
amples of the common meaning and use of the word in 
Sections I and II, are from every period of Greek litera- 
ture in which the word occurs. They include all that 
have been given by lexicographers, and by those who have 
written professedly on this subject ; and these, with the 
examples added from my own reading, exhaust the use of 
this word in Greek literature. 

" The quotations have been copied, in every instance, by 
myself or under my own eye, from the page, chapter, or 
section referred to. Special pains have been taken to 
make these references as definite and clear as possible, 
that any passage may be easily found ; the author's name 
being given, the name of the treatise and its divisions (if 
any are made), and the volume and page of the edition in 
most common use, or of the one accessible to me." 

We have not room to give our readers the benefit of all 
the examples given by Dr. Conant, but we will give a suffi- 
cient number to indicate the import of the term at the 
time it was used by the authors of the New Testament. 
We give the number attached to each example in Dr. 
Conant's work, by which they may be found by any one 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 285 

who may choose to look for them. We do not follow the 
numerical order of the Doctor, because we wish to present 
such examples as will give the use of the word at a suffi- 
cient period before the days of the Saviour, and coming 
down through His time to a sufficiently late period to give 
its use at the time He employed it. 

Example 62. 

Pindar, born 522 before Christ, Pythic Odes, II, 79, 80 
(144-147). Comparing himself to a cork of a fisher's net, 
floating at the top, while the other parts of the fishing 
tackle are doing service in the depth below, he says : 

" For, as when the rest of the tackle is toiling deep 
in the sea, I, as a cork above the net, am undipped (unbap- 
tized) in the brine." 

Example i. 

Polybius, born 205 before Christ, History, book i, chap. 
51, 6. In his account of the' sea fight at Drepanum, be- 
tween the Romans and Carthagenians, describing the ad- 
vantages of the latter in their choice of a position, and in 
the superior structure and more skillful management of 
their vessels, he says : 

"For, if any were hard pressed by the enemy, they re- 
treated safely, on account of their fast sailing, into the 
open space ; and then, with reversed course, now sailing 
round and now attacking in flank the more advanced of 
the pursuers, while turning and embarrassed on account 
of the weight of the ships and the unskillfulness of the 
crews, they made continued assaults and submerged 
(baptized) many of the vessels." 

Example 2. 
The same work, book viii, ch. 8, 4. Describing the 
operations of the engines, which Archimedes constructed 



286 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

for the defense of Syracuse when besieged by the Romans, 
and with which he lifted the prows of the besieging ves- 
sels out of the water, so that they stood erect on the stern, 
and then let them fall, he says : 

" Which being done, some of the vessels fell on their 
sides, and some were overturned, but most of them, when 
the prow was let fall from on high, being submerged 
(baptized), became filled with sea-water and with con- 
fusion." 

Example 6. 

The same history, book xxxiv, ch. 3, 7. In his descrip- 
tion of the manner of taking the sword-fish (with an iron- 
headed spear or harpoon), he says : 

" And even if the spear fall into the sea, it Js not lost, 
for it is compacted of both oak and pine, so that when the 
oaken part is immersed (baptized) by the weight, the rest 
is buoyed up, and is easily recovered." 

Example 7. 

The same work, book iii, ch. 72, 4. Speaking of the 
passage of the Roman army, under the consul Tiberius, 
through the river Tebia, which had been swollen by heavy 
rains, he says : 

" They passed through with difficulty, the foot soldiers 
immersed (baptized) as far as to the breasts." 

Example 50. 

^Esopic Fables ; fable of the mule, who, finding that he 
lightened his load of salt by lying down in the water, 
repeated the experiment when loaded with sponges and 
wool. 

" One of the salt-bearing mules, rushing into a river, 
accidentally slipped down, and rising up lightened (the salt 
becoming dissolved), he perceived the cause and remem- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 287 

bered it ; so that always, when passing through the river, 
he purposely lowered down and immersed (baptized) the 
pannier." Of uncertain date (related in Plut. Moral., Skill 
of Water and Land Animals, xvi). 

Example 86. 

^Esopic Fables ; writer and date unknown ; fable of the 
Man and the Fox: " A certain man, having a grudge 
against a fox for some mischief done by her, after getting 
her into his power contrived a long time how to punish 
her, and dipping (baptizing) tow in oil, he bound it to 
her tail and set fire to it." 

Example 71. 

Homeric Allegories, ch. 9 ; (B. C, uncertain how 
long.) The writer explains the grounds of the allegory 
(as he regards it) of Neptune freeing Mars from Vulcan 
thus : " Since the mass of iron drawn red hot from the 
furnace is plunged (baptized) in water; and the fiery 
glow, by its own nature quenched with water, ceases." 

Example 9. 

Strabo, born about 60 years B. C, Geography, book 
xii, ch. 2, 4. Speaking of the underground channel 
through which the waters of the Pyramus (a river of 
Cilicia in Asia Minor) forced their way, he says : 

" And to one who hurls down a dart from above into 
the channel, the force of the water makes so much resist- 
ance that it is hardly immersed (baptized)." 

Example 10. 

The same work, book vi, ch. 2, 9 : " And around Acra- 
gos [Agrigentum in Sicily] are marsh lakes, having the 
'aste indeed of sea-water, but a different nature ; for even 



20<5 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

those who can not swim are not immersed (baptized), 
floating like pieces of wood." 

Example ii. 

The same work, book xiv, ch. 3, 9. Speaking of the 
march of Alexander's army along the narrow beach (flooded 
in stormy weather) between the mountain called Climax 
and the Pamphilian Sea, he says: 

" Alexander happening to be there at the stormy season, 
and accustomed to trust for the most part to fortune, set 
forward before the swell subsided, and they marched the 
whole day in water, immersed (baptized) as far as to the 
waist." 

Example 12. 

The same work, book xiv, ch. 2, 42. Speaking of the 
asphalt in the lake Lirbanus, which floats on the surface 
on account of the greater specific gravity of the water, he 
says : 

" Then floating at the top on account of the nature of 
the water, by virtue of which we said there is no need of 
being a swimmer, and he who enters in is not immersed 
(baptized), but is lifted out." 

Example 61. 

Strabo, born about the year 60 B. C, Geography, book 
xii, ch. 5, sec. 4. Speaking of the lake Tatta, in Phrygia 
(which he calls a natural salt pit), he says : 

" The water solidifies so readily around every thing that 
is immersed (baptized) into it, that they draw up salt 
crowns when they let down a circle of rushes." 

Example 13. 
Diodorus wrote his history about 60-30 B. C, Historical 
Library, book xvi, ch. 80. In his account of Timoleon's 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 289 

defeat of the Carthagenian army on the bank of the river 
Crimissus, in Sicily, many of the fugitives perishing in 
the stream, swollen by a violent storm, he says : 

" The river, rushing down with the current, increased 
in violence, submerged (baptized) many, and destroyed 
them attempting to swim through with their armor." 

Example 14. 

The same work, book i, ch. 36. Describing the effects 
of the rapid rise of water during the annual inundation of 
the Nile, he says : 

" Most of the wild land animals are surrounded by the 
stream and perish, being submerged (baptized), but 
some, escaping to the high grounds, are saved." 

Example 16. 

Joseph us, born A. D. 37, Jewish Antiquities, book xv, 
ch. 3, 3. Describing the murder of the boy Aristobulus, 
who (by Herod's command) was drowned by his com- 
panions in a swimming-bath, says : 

" Continually pressing down and immersing (baptizing) 
him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist 
till they had entirely suffocated him." 

Example 17. 

The same writer, Jewish Wars, book i, ch. 22, 2, relating 
to the same occurrence, says : 

"And there, according to command, being immersed 
(baptized) by the Gauls in a swimming-bath, he dies." 

Example 18. 

The same writer, Jewish Wars, book iii, ch. 8, 5 : 
" As I also account a pilot most cowardly, who, through 
dread of a storm, before the blast came, voluntarily sub- 
merged (baptized) the vessel." 
25 



29o the gospel plan of salvation. 

Example 19. 

The same writer, Jewish Wars, book iii, ch. 9, 3. De- 
scribing the condition of the vessels in the port of Joppa, 
during a storm, he says : 

"And many [of the vessels] struggling against the op- 
posing swell toward the open sea (for they feared the 
shore, being rocky, and the enemies upon it), the billows, 
rising high above, submerged (baptized)." 

Example 20. 
The same writer, Antiquities of the Jews, book ix, ch. 
10, 2. In his narrative of Jonah's flight, and of the events 
that followed, he says: "The ship being just about to be 
submerged (baptized)." 

Example 21. 
The same writer, Life of Himself, sec. 3, says : 
" For our vessel having been submerged (baptized) in 
the midst of the Adriatic, being about six hundred in 
number, we swam through the whole night." 

Example 24. 

Plutarch, born A. D. 50, Life of Theseus, xxiv, quotes 
the following oracle of the Sybil, respecting the city of 
Athens : m 

'* A bladder, thou mayest be immersed (baptized), but 
it is not possible for thee to sink." 

Example 25. 

The same writer, Life of Alexander, lxvii. Describing 
a season of revelry in the army of Alexander the Great, 
when returning from his eastern conquests, he says : 

" Thou wouldest not have seen a buckler, or a helmet, or 
a pike, but the soldiers, along the whole way, dipping 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 29I 

(baptizing) with cups, and horns, and goblets, from great 
wine-jars and mixing-bowls, were drinking to one an- 
other." 

Example 64. 

The same writer, on Superstition, iii. The superstitious 
man, consulting the jugglers on his frightful dreams, is told ; 

" Call the old Expiatrix, and plunge (baptize) thyself 
into the sea, and spend a day in sitting on the ground." 
Example 65. 

The same writer, Gryllus, vii. He says of Agamemnon : 

" Then bravely plunging (baptizing) himself into the 
lake Capais, that there* he might extinguish his love and 
be freed from desire." 

Example 28. 

Lucien, born about 135 A. D., Timon or the Man-hater, 
44. Among the resolves for the direction of his future life 
(to testify his hatred of mankind) is the following : 

"And if the winter's torrent were bearing one away, 
and he with outstretched hands were imploring help, to 
thrust even him headlong, immersing (baptizing) so that 
he should not be able to come up again." 

Example 29. 

The same writer, True History, book ii, 4. In this satire 
on the love of the marvelous, he pleasantly describes men 
walking on the sea (having cork feet), and says : 

"We wondered, therefore, when we saw them not im- 
mersed (baptized), but standing above the waves and 
traveling on without fear." 

Example 31. 
Dion Cassius, born A. D. 155, Roman History, book 
xxxvii, ch. 58. In the description here given of the eifects 
of a violent storm of wind, he says : 



292 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

" So that very many trees were upturned by the roots, 
and many houses were thrown down ; the ships which were 
in the Tiber, and lying at anchor by the city and at its 
mouth, were submerged (baptized), and the wooden bridge 
was destroyed." 

Example 32. 

The same work, book xli, ch. 42. Describing the defeat 
of Curio by Juba, king of Numidia (at the siege of Utica, 
in Africa), and the fate of the fugitives, many losing their 
lives in their eager haste to get aboard of their vessels, 
and others by overloading and sinking them, he says : 

" And many of them who had fled perished ; some 
thrown down by the jostling in getting on board the ves- 
sels, and others submerged (baptized) in the vessels 
themselves by their own weight." 

Example 38. 

Porphyry, born A. D. 233, Concerning the Styx. De- 
scribing the Lake of Probation, in India, and the use made 
of it by the Brahmins for testing the guilt or innocence 
of persons accused of crime, he says : 

" The depth is as far as to the knees ; . . . . and when 
the accused comes to it, if he is guiltless he goes through 
without fear, having the water as far as to the knees ; but 
if guilty, after proceeding a little way he is immersed 
(baptized) unto the head." 

Example 44. 

Gregory, A. D. 240, Panegyric on Oiigen, xiv. De- 
scribing him as an experienced and skillful guide through 
the mazes of philosophical speculations, he says : 

" He himself would remain on high in safety, and, 
stretching out a hand to others, save them as if drawing 
up persons submerged (baptized)." 






what is baptism ? 293 

Example 54. 

Achilles Tatius, A. D. 450, Story of Clitophon and 
Leucippe, book iii, ch. 1. The vessel being thrown on her 
beam ends in a storm, the narrator says : 

" We all, therefore, shifted our position to the more ele- 
vated parts of the ship, in order that we might lighten that 
part of the ship that was immerged (baptized)." 

Example 55. 

The same writer (ibidem). 

" But suddenly the wind shifts to another quarter of the 
ship, and the vessel is almost immerged (baptized)." 

Example 82. 

Achilles Tatius, A. D. 450, Story of Clitophon and 
Leucippe, book ii, ch. 14 : "And there is a fountain of gold 
there. They plunge (baptize) into the water, therefore, 
a pole smeared with pitch, and open the barriers of the 
stream. And the pole is to the gold what the hook is to 
the fish, for it catches it ; and the pitch is a bait for 
the prey." 

Many other examples might be given, but these are 
deemed sufficient to show that baptidzo, at the time the 
Saviour and the writers of the New Testament used it, 
primarily meant to dip or immerse. It is admitted that 
classic Greek writers often employed the word in a meta- 
phorical sense, but we are seeking for its primary and lit- 
eral meaning, as used in the New Testament. 

The examples given cover a period of nearly a thousand 
years, embracing the time when the Lord and the apostles 
lived. Josephus was born A. D. 37, and hence lived 
and wrote contemporaneously with the apostles. He was 
a native Jew and wrote in the Greek language, and cer- 
tainly understood the word as used by his people. As a 



294 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

scholar he was inferior to no man of his day. He says : 
" Now, my father Matthias was not only eminent on account 
of his nobility, but had a higher commendation on account 
of his righteousness, and was in great reputation in Jeru- 
salem, the greatest city we have. I was myself brought 
up with my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was 
my own brother, by both father and mother ; and I made 
mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, 
and appeared to have both a great memory and under- 
standing. Moreover, when I was a child, and about four- 
teen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I 
had to learning ; on which account the high-priests and 
principal men of the city then came frequently to me to- 
gether, in order to know my opinion about the accurate 
understanding of points of the law," etc. 

Again : Ant., book xx, ch. xi, sec. 3, p. 139, he says : "I 
am so bold as to say, now I have so completely perfected 
the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person, 
whether he were a Jew or a foreigner, had he ever so great 
an inclination to it, could so accurately deliver these ac- 
counts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For those 
of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed 
them in the learning belonging to the Jew. I have also 
taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the 
Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek lan- 
guage, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak 
our own tongue that I can not pronounce Greek with suffi- 
cient exactness," etc. 

Although these extracts were written by Josephus him- 
self, yet the literary world awards him all the ability 
claimed in them, as the following paragraph will show: 

" Josephus, Flavius, a celebrated Jewish historian, was 
born at Jerusalem 37 A. D. He was of both royal and 
sacerdotal lineage, being descended, on the mother's side, 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 295 

from the line of Asmonean princes, while his father, Mat- 
thias, officiated as a priest in the first of the twenty-four 
courses. The careful education he received developed his 
brilliant faculties at an unusually early period, and his ac- 
quirements both in Hebrew and Greek literature — the two 
principal branches of his studies — soon drew public atten- 
tion upon him." Chambers's Encyclopedia. 

Joseph us used the word baptidzo, in some of its forms, 
fourteen times, several examples of which we have given, 
and sirely he knew the meaning his people attached to it ; 
and had they used it in a sense different from him, it is 
likely it would have been mentioned by him somewhere. 
It is sometimes said that he used the word in the sense 
of drowning, but this is manifestly an error. The boy 
Aristobulus, of whom he speaks, was indeed drowned, but 
we know the fact, because it is so stated, and not because 
of any such meaning in the word baptidzo. 

Many persons admit that the word baptidzo in classic 
Greek means to dip or immerse, but they insist that it has 
a different meaning in the New Testament. The reader 
will remember that the seventy authors already quoted 
defined the word in its scriptural application, and they say 
it means immerse when used to indicate baptism ; and the 
examples given from the classics show that with the Greek 
classic writers it meant the same thing. Moses Stuart 
says : " That the Greek fathers and the Latin ones who 
were familiar with the Greek understood the usual import 
of the word baptidzo would hardly seem to be capable of a 
denial. That they might be confirmed in their view of the 
import of this word, by common usage among the Greek 
classic authors, we have seen in the first part of this dis- 
sertation." — Stuart on Baptism, p. 154. How could the 
fathers be confirmed in the fact that baptidzo meant im- 
merse by classic usage, if their use of it differed from its 



296 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

use among the classics ? Mr. Hughey, a distinguished 
Methodist debater, of great learning and research, in his 
debate with President Braden, p. 81, says: "I will show 
by examples from the classics that the classical usage 
agrees with the Helenistic and patristic usage of the 
word." After giving some examples of its use, on page 82, 
he says : "These examples show, by the usage of the word, 
that classical usage agrees exactly with the scriptural 
usage and also the usage of the fathers." When summing 
up his argument, on page 157, he says: "I showed by a 
number of examples from the classics that classical usage 
agrees with Scripture and patristic usage." Thus we 
have his testimony, in three different places, that the 
classic usage of baptidzo differs not from scriptural and 
patristic usage. Such is his testimony, though different 
from some of his brethren. 

Dr. H. A. W. Meyer, in his Manual on the Gospels of 
Mark and Luke, says : " The expression in Mark vii : 4, is 
not to be understood of the washing of hands (as inter- 
preted by Lightfoot and Wetstein), but of the immersing — 
which the word always means in the classics and in the 
New Testament." Bailey's Manual, p. 294. Thus, with 
Dr. Meyer, it means the same in both places. 

Dr. George Campbell says : " The word baptidzein, both 
in sacred authors and classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, 
to immerse." Campbell on Baptism, p. 142. Dr. George 
Campbell, as a scholar and biblical critic, had no superior 
in his time, and he unites his testimony with the others 
given, and still others which might be given, in proving 
that baptidzo means to dip or immerse in both sacred and 
classic usage. It is true, as shown by Schluesner, that the 
Greek classic writers sometimes used the word to indicate 
sinking without regard to emersion, while in the Scriptures 
it is used in the sense of dip, as in 2 Kings v : 14, which 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 297 

includes the idea of emersion. Hence says Paul : "Buried 
with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." 
Col. ii : 12. But this is rather a difference in application 
than in primary import. Immersion is the leading idea in 
the classics as well as in the Scriptures. But were we to 
admit a difference in the primary import of the word, 
unless it be shown to mean sprinkle and pour in the New 
Testament, the admission could not serve sprinklers any 
purpose. This is the point which they must prove. 

That dip, immerse, or some equivalent word, is neces- 
sary to express the primary meaning of baptidzo, is admit- 
ted by all ; but it is insisted that wash, wet, stain, dye, etc., 
are "figurative meanings ; and, as washing, wetting, staining, 
and dyeing may be done by pouring or sprinkling, there- 
fore baptism may be performed in either of these ways. 

Wash, wet, stain, dye, etc., can not be real meanings, 
but are purely metonymical — that is, they are effects of 
the true or real meaning of the word. 

No two meanings can be given to the same word which 
are antagonistic to each other. Stains are removed by 
washing, and, therefore, the same word can not literally 
mean both wash and stain. Washing may be the effect 
of immersing in clean water, while staining and dyeing 
may be done by immersing in impure or coloring fluids ; 
hence these opposite meanings can not be otherwise than 
metonymical — that is, they are effects produced by the real 
meaning, dipping or immersing. All these figurative mean- 
ings, so-called, may be the effect of immersion, but they 
can not all be the effect of sprinkling or pouring, for wash- 
ing and dyeing are not done in either of these ways. 
Sprinkling a few drops of water on a filthy garment would 
not be likely to wash it well, nor would pouring a little 
water on one end of a garment be very apt to wash or 
cleanse the balance of it. And if it were a coloring fluid 



298 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

it would not be a good process by which to dye a whole 
web to sprinkle or pour a little of the fluid on one 
end of it. 

But does the word baptidzo ever mean to color or dye ? 
We beg the attention of the reader to the following very 
appropriate remarks of Dr. Carson on this subject. He 
says : 

" The word BAPTO, from which is formed BAPTIDZO, 
signifies, primarily, to dip ; and, as a secondary meaning, 
obviously derived from the primary, it denotes to dye. 
Every occurrence of the word may be reduced to one or 
other of these acceptations." Carson on Baptism, p. 18. 

On page 19 he says: "There is a very obvious differ- 
ence in the use of the words, and a difference that ma- 
terially affects the point at issue. This difference is, 

BAPTO IS NEVER USED TO DENOTE THE ORDINANCE OF 
BAPTISM, AND BAPTIDZO NEVER SIGNIFIES TO DYE. But 

the derivative is formed to modify the primary only, and 
in all the Greek language, I assert that an instance is not 
to be found in which it has the secondary meaning of the 
primitive word. If this assertion is not correct, it will be 
easy for learned men to produce an example in contradic- 
tion. That bapto is never applied to the ordinance of bap- 
tism any one can verify who is able to look into the pas- 
sages of the Greek Testament where the ordinance is 
spoken of. Now, if this observation is just, it overturns 
all those speculations that explain the word, as applied to 
baptism, by an allusion to dyeing ; for the primitive word 
that has this secondary meaning is not applied to the ordi- 
nance, and the derivative word, which is appointed to ex- 
press it, has not the secondary signification of dyeing. 
Bapto has two meanings ; baptidzo in the whole history of 
the Greek language has but one. It not only signifies to 
dip or immerse, but it never has any other meaning. Each 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 299 

of these words has its specific province, into which the 
other can not enter, while there is a common province in 
which either of them may serve. Either of them may 
signify to dip generally, but the primitive can not specific- 
ally express that ordinance to which the derivative has 
been appropriated, and the derivative can not signify to 
dye, which is a part of the province of the primitive. The 
difference is precise and important." 

While we think it likely that Dr. Carson's language is 
rather strong in some respects, he shows most conclu- 
sively that baptidzo can not mean to dye. Indeed, we have 
no faith in the transmission of secondary or metonymical 
meanings from primitive to derivative words. They inherit 
the primary but not foreign meanings of the words from 
which they came. But as Dr. Carson was an immersionist 
it may be w r ell to hear from those who practiced affusion 
and aspersion. Dr. Moses Stuart says : 

" I have already intimated that baptidzo is distinguished 
from bapto in its meaning. I now add that it is not, like 
the latter word, used to designate the idea of coloring or 
dyeing ; while in some other respects it seems, in classical 
use, to be nearly or quite synonymous with bapto. In the 
New Testament, however, there is one other marked dis- 
tinction between the use of these verbs. Baptidzo and its 
derivatives are exclusively employed when the rite of bap- 
tism is to be designated in any form whatever, and in this 
case bapto seems to be purposely as well as habitually 
excluded." 

Here we have a confirmation of Dr. Carson's statement 
by one whose authority will not be questioned by those 
who oppose us. If these authors are worthy of credit, 
baptidzo does not mean to dye. But suppose that in this 
they are mistaken, as immersion is admitted by all to be 
the primary meaning of the word representing baptism, we 



3<X> THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

wish to know why it is to give place to figurative or met- 
onymical meanings, such as wash, wet, stain, dye, etc.? 
All philological laws require preference to be given to the 
primary meaning of words, unless good reason be shown 
for its removal. We submit the following rules for the use 
and interpretation of words, arranged by Moses Stuart, of 
Andover, aided by Edward Robinson, author of Robin- 
son's Greek Lexicon, Robinson's Gesenius' Hebrew Lexi- 
con, etc. 

1. "To every word in Scripture there is unquestionably 
assigned some idea or notion, otherwise words are useless, 
and have no more signification than the inarticulate sounds 
of animals." Ernesti, p. 7. 

2. " The literal meaning of words is the sense that is so 
connected with them as to be spontaneously presented -to 
the mind as soon as the sound of the word is heard, and 
that is first in order. The literal sense does not differ 
from the sense of the letter." Ibid. 

3. "A particular meaning being attached to a word can 
no more be changed or denied than any historical event 
whatever. All men in their daily conversation and writ- 
ings attach but one sense to a word, at the same time and 
in the same passage, unless they design to speak in enig- 
mas. The sense of a word can not be diverse or multifa- 
rious at the same time and in the same passage or expres- 
sion." Ibid, p. 9. 

4. "There can be no certainty at all in respect to the 
interpretation of any passage, unless a kind of necessity 
compels us to affix a particular sense to a word, which 
sense must be one, and unless there are special reasons 
for a tropical meaning, it must be literal." Ibid, p. 10. 

5. " The sense of words depends upon the usus loquendi" 
Ibid, p. 13. 

6. " Words are proper and tropical, literal and figura- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 301 

tive. First : A proper or literal word is a definite name 
given to a certain thing. Originally, words were undoubt- 
edly used in their proper and literal sense. Second : 
Tropes or metaphorical words are called by Aristotle 
strangers, foreigners." Ibid, p. 21. 

7. " In no language can a word have more than one lit- 
eral meaning in the same place." Ibid. 

By these rules we see that a word can have but one 
meaning at the same time and in the same place, and that 
the primary meaning must be given to words unless there 
be special reasons for its removal. These rules come to 
us from the very fountain of authority in America, and 
have existence in the nature of all language. Having thus 
found that the primary meaning of baptidzo is to dip or 
immerse, dare we set it aside and adopt a metonymical, 
metaphorical, or figurative meaning, for no better reason 
than to save a favorite theory or to avoid going into the 
water where the Lord commanded us to go ? 

In the Septuagint Greek of the Old Testament we have 
baptidzo as a translation of the Hebrew word taval, which 
modern theologians insist means sprinkle or pour. Al- 
though this word is never employed to indicate baptism, 
as baptidzo is a translation of it, it may be well for us to 
examine it briefly. In the Hebrew Bible it is used four- 
teen times, and is rendered by King James' translators 
dip, every time ; hence, we have the unanimous testimony 
of the forty-seven distinguished scholars employed by him 
in the translation of the Hebrew Bible, that this is the 
meaning of the word. The following are the connections 
in which it occurs : 

Genesis xxxvii : 31 : "And they took Joseph's coat and 
killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood." 

Exodus xii : 22 : "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop 
and dip it in the blood that is in the basin." 



302 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Leviticus iv : 6 : "And the priest shall dip his ringer in 
the blood ;" chap, ix : 9 : "And the sons of Aaron brought 
the blood unto him, and he dipped his finger in the blood ;" 
chap, xiv : 6: "And shall dip them and the living bird in 
the blood of the bird that was killed ;" verse 16 : "And the 
priest shall dip his finger in the oil;" verse 51 : "And he 
shall take the cedar wood and the hyssop, and the scarlet 
and the living bird and dip them in the blood of the slain 
bird and in the running water." 

Numbers xiv: 18: "And a clean person shall take hys- 
sop and dip it in water." 

Deut. xxxiii : 24 : " Let him dip his foot in oil." 

Joshua iii : 15 : "The feet of the priests that bear the 
ark were dipped in the brim of the water." 

Ruth ii : 14: "And dip thy morsel in the vinegar." 

1 Sam. xiv 127:" Wherefore he put forth the end of the 
lod that was in his hand and dipped it in an honeycomb." 

2 Kings v: 14: "And dipped himself seven times in 
Jordan ;" chap, viii : 15:" He took a thick cloth and dipped 
it in water." 

In Lev. ix : 9, we have dipped and poured in the same 
verse ; dipped is from taval, but poured is not. In Lev. 
xiv: 16, we have dip and sprinkle in the same verse ; dip is 
from taval, sprinkle is not. Why is this ? If taval means 
to sprinkle and pour, why was it not used to express 
sprinkling and pouring even when it was employed in the 
same verse ? We have four Hebrew lexicons by us as we 
write, which define the word as follows : " Taval — to dip, 
to dip in, to immerse, to dip or immerse one's self. Ex. 2 
Kings v: 14 : He went dozvn and dipped himself seven times 
in Jordan." Robinson's Gesenius' Heb. Lex., p. 364. 

" Taval — 1, to dip, immerse, plunge ; 2, to tinge or dye 
with a certain color, which is usually performed by dipping? 
Parkhurst, page 255. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 303 

" Taval — 1. He dipped ; 2. He was dipped." Robert- 
son's Hebrew Dictionary by Joseph, page in. 

" Taval — dip, dip in, immerse, submerge." Stokius, 
Vet. Test., vol. i, p. 421. 

" Taval— merge, immerse." M. Stuart, Chr, Bap., p. 1 19. 

Schleusner incidentally defines taval in his definition 
of baptidzo thus : "to immerse, dip, plunge into water ; from 
bapto, and correspojids to the Hebrew taval!' 

Besides these, we have in other works the following defi- 
nitions of taval, viz.: 

1. By Davidson : " Taval — 1, to dip, to immerse ; 2, to 
stain." 

2. Buxtorf : " Taval — to dip, to dip into, to submerge, 
to immerse." 

3. Dr. Kleeburg, a celebrated Jewish rabbi, of Louis- 
ville, Ky., answered certain interrogatories propounded to 
him, thus : " 1. What does taval mean ? It means to im- 

( merse, to dip. 2. Does it ever mean to sprinkle or pour? 
It never means to sprinkle or pour. 3. Did the Hebrews 
always immerse their proselytes ? They did. The whole 
body was entirely submerged. 4. Were the Jewish ablu- 
tions immersions ? Before eating and prayer, and after 
rising in the morning they washed ; when they have become 
unclean they must immerse." Louisville Debate, p. 652. 

Thus we see these authors concur in giving the import 
of taval to dip or immerse ; hence, as far as it throws any 
light upon baptidzo, it certainly does not give any support 
to sprinkling or pouring. 

We next present the reader with a table of versions of 
the New Testament, showing the several languages into 
which it has been translated, when the translations were 
made, and the word representing baptidzo in each of the 
languages, which we copy from Bailey's Manual, pages 
121, 122, 123 : 



304 



THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



Version. 


Daie. 


Word. 


Meaning 


SYRIAC : 








Peshito, 


2d century, 


amad, 


immerse. 


Philozenian, 


6th century, 


amad, 


immerse. 


Arabic : 








Polyglot, 


7th century (?) 


amada, 


immerse. 


Propaganda, 


1671, 


amada, 


immerse. 


Sabat, 


1816, 


amada, 


immerse. 


Persic, 


1341, 


shustan and shuzidan, wash. 


Ethiopic, 


4th century, 


tamaka, 


immerse. 


Amharic, 


1822, 


tamaka, 


immerse. 


Egyptian : 








Coptic, 
Sahidic, 


3d century, 
2d century, •* 
3d century, j 


tomas 


f immerse. 
1 plunge. 




Basmuric, 


baptizo, 


immerse. 


Armenian, 


5th century, 


mugurdel, 


immerse. 


Slavonic, 


9th century, 


krestiti, 


cross. 


Russian, 


I5 IQ >\ 






Polish, 


1585, 






Bohemian, 


1593, f 


. same root, 


cross. 


Lithuanian, 


1660, / " 






Livonian, 


1685, \ 






Dorpat Esthonian, 


1727,/ 






Gothic, 


4th century, 


daupjan, 


dip. 


German, 


1522, 


taufen, 


dip. 


Danish, 


1524, 


dobe. 


dip. 


Swedish, 


1534, 


dopa, 


dip. 


Dutch, etc., 


1460, 


doopen, 


dip. 


Icelandic, 


1584, 


skira, 


cleanse. 


Anglo-Saxon, 


8th century, 


dyppan, 


dip. 


n a 


8th century, 


fullian, 


cleanse. 


Latin : 








Of the early Fathers 


2d century, 


tingo, 


immerse. 


Ante-Hieronymian, 


3d century, 


baptizo, 


immerse. 


Vulgate, 


4th century, 


baptizo, 


immerse. 


French, 


1535, 


baptizer, 


immerse. 


Spanish, 


1556, 


baptizar, 


immerse. 


Italian, 


1562, 


baptizzan, 


immerse. 


English (Wickliffe), 


1380, 


wash,christen,baptize, immerse. 


Tindal, 


1526, 


baptize, 




Welsh, 


1567, 


bedyddio, 


bathe. 


Irish, 


1602, 


baisdim, 


bathe. 


Gaelic, 


1650, 


baisdean, 


bathe. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 305 

Here are thirty-eight versions of the New Testament, 
made at periods extending from the latter part of the sec- 
ond century to 1822, none of which represent baptism by 
a word indicating to sprinkle or pour, nineteen of which 
represent it by a word meaning to immerse, six by a word 
meaning to dip, and one to plunge, while others use words 
meaning to bathe and cleanse, which manifestly refer to 
the same leading thought. 

But it is insisted that the Syriac word amad means to 
pour or shed forth. In support of our table of versions 
we offer the following testimony as to the meaning of this 
word : 

Schaaf : "Amad — to bathe one's self, to bathe, dip, im- 
merse into water, baptize." Syriac Lex., Lyons, 1708. 

Michaelis : "Amad — to bathe, baptize, immerse." Syr- 
iac Lex., Gottingen, 1788. 

Guido Fabricius : "Amad — to baptize, dip, bathe." 
Syro-Chal. Lex. accompanying Antwerp Polyglot, Ant- 
werp, 1592. 

Buxtorf: "Amad — baptize, dip, bathe one's self." 
Chaldee and Syriac Lex., Basle, 1662. 

Beza : After remarking that baptidzo properly means to 
immerse and never to wash, except as a consequence of 
immersion, says: "Nor does this signification of 'amad! 
which the Syrians use for 'baptize,' differ at all from this." 
Appendix to Stewart on Baptism, p. 249. 

Uleman : " Amad — to suffer one's self to be dipped, to 
suffer one's self to be baptized. Amada — dipping, bap- 
tism." Syriac Gram, with Lex. by Hutchinson, p. 359. 

Ephraim Cyrus was a native Syrian, who lived in the 
fourth century ; speaking of Christ, says : " How wonder- 
ful is it that thy footsteps were planted on the waters ; that 
the great sea should subject itself to thy feet; and that 
yet, at a small river, that same' ,head of thine should be 
26 



306 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

subject to be bowed down and baptized in it." Gotch's 
Bible Questions, p. 130. 

These definitions and examples of the meaning of amad 
are quite sufficient to sustain our table of versions as to 
this word. But it is further insisted that the German 
taufen signifies to sprinkle or pour. If this be so, our table 
needs correction at this point. Let us see how this is : 

Luther says : " The Germans call baptism taujf, from 
depth, which they call tieff in their language, as* if it were 
proper those should be deeply immersed who are baptized. 
And truly, if you consider what baptism signifies you shall 
see the same thing required." Luther's Works, vol. i, p. 
J2> Wittenberg, 1582. 

Heinsius : " Taufen signifies, in a general sense, to 
plunge into water (as a bomb dipped in pitch and rosin); 
in a more limited sense, to immerse in water in a religious 
way." German Diet., 4 vols., Hanover, 1822. 

Smilthenner : " Taufen, in old German, taufian, from 
taufa, which signifies tiefe, (2. e., deep), consequently it 
means to immerse." Etymol. Diet., 1834. 

Kaltschmidt : "Taufen — to immerse (eintauchen) to 
consecrate to Christianity, to name." Germ. Lex., Leip- 
sic, 1834. 

Schwenck : " Taufen — to immerse in water ; specially, 
to purify with water for admission to the Christian church. 
Taufen is the same as tattcheny Etymol. Diet., 3d ed., 1838. 

Gemthe : " Tauchen and taufen were originally the same ; 
the act expressed by taufen was performed by immersion 
(untertauchen). At present the word taufen retains its 
proper signification — overwhelm with water." Gemthe's 
Germ. Synonyms, 1838. 

Wiegand's German Synonyms: "Taufen — originally 
equivalent to u,ntertaucJien (to dip under), signifies, in its 
religious use, to immerse in water!' 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 2>°7 

Knapp's Theology, vol. ii, p. 501, Andover edition, 
taiifen is incidentally defined. This great German scholar 
says : " Baptisma, from baptidzein, which properly signi- 
fies to immerse, like the German taufen, to dip in, to wash 
by immersion." 

Webster and Worcester each give taufen as the 
German synonym of dip. 

Surely these authorities are sufficient to establish im- 
mersion or dipping as the meaning of taufen, the German 
word representing baptism. 

The Chaldee word tseva is also brought into the service 
of sprinklers in modern times. Gesenius defines it thus : 
** To dip in, to immerse ; hence to tinge, to dye." Heb. and 
Chal. Lex., p. 891. M. Stuart says: "The Syriac has a 
word like the Chaldee tseva . . . which means to plunge, 
immerse." Christ. Bap., p. 155. Thus it will be seen that 
there is not much appearance of sprinkle or pour in it. 

Having viewed the word baptidzo through the light of 
thirty-four lexicographers, seventy commentators and crit- 
ics, numerous examples of its use among the classics, and its 
representatives in thirty-eight different versions, made at 
different times and in different countries, and every-where 
found that its primary import is to dip or immerse, and 
that the laws of interpretation require us to retain the 
primary meaning, unless good reason be found for its re- 
moval, we are now prepared to open the New Testament 
and see what the Lord required of those commanded to be 
baptized. 

The Commission. 

To the apostles Jesus said : " Go teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Spirit." Matt, xxviii : 19. Here, He who 
was possessed of all authority in heaven and upon earth 
commanded his apostles to do something, to which the 



308 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

obedient of all nations were bound to submit. We have 
found a rule of interpretation saying: "To every word in 
Scripture there is unquestionably assigned some idea or 
notion, otherwise words are useless, and have no more sig- 
nification than the inarticulate sounds of animals." What 
particular idea, notion, or thought is attached to the word 
"baptizing" in the commission given by the Lord? Did 
He employ the term in its ordinary, current signification, 
or did He attach to it some figurative or tropical meaning ? 
If He used the word out of its current signification, and 
gave no notice thereof, we see not how He expected to be 
understood by those who heard Him. Unless a command 
is understood it can not be obeyed ; hence, we see not how 
persons are to submit to baptism when they know not 
what is required of them. Therefore, as it was necessary 
that He should be understood in order to be obeyed, we 
conclude He used the term baptizing in its ordinary or 
current acceptation ; and if so, He commanded the apos- 
tles to immerse the people, for we have shown this to be 
the current meaning of the word used by Him. Indeed, 
if the word means to sprinkle and to pour, it is difficult 
to see how the command can be obeyed at all ; for the 
command requires the people to be baptized and not the 
water to be baptized upon the people. If sprinkling or 
pouring be the act required, then it is the water or element 
used that is baptized, and not the people; for it is cer- 
tainly water that is sprinkled or poured. We are aware 
that Paul says : " When Moses had spoken every precept 
to all the people, according to the law, he took the blood 
of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and 
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people." 
Heb. ix: 19. But we regard this as no valid objection to 
the position we have taken, for Paul's language was evi- 
dently elliptical, as may be seen by reference to the his- 



WHAT IS BAPTISM ? 309 

torical account of what Moses did : "And he took the 
book of the covenant and read in the audience of the peo- 
ple, and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we 
do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and 
sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of 
the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you con- 
cerning all these words." Ex. xxiv: 7, 8. Hence, the 
ellipsis in Paul's language being supplied, it means that 
Moses sprinkled the blood upon the people. But we may 
be asked, is not the commission also elliptical ? Suppose 
it is ; this will not affect our argument at all, as may be 
seen by supplying the ellipsis : 1. Teach the people, sprink- 
ling (water upon) them. 2. Teach the people, pouring 
(water upon) them. 3. Teach the people, immersing them 
(in water). Though the ellipsis be supplied, it changes not 
the act indicated. The government is not changed when 
the ellipsis is supplied as to immersion, the object of the 
action expressed by the participle is the people ; hence they 
are immersed ; but as to the acts of sprinkling and pour- 
ing the government is entirely changed — the act expressed 
by the active participle sprinkling takes effect upon the 
water, and the word people is governed by a preposition. 
The same remark applies to pouring. The act expressed 
by it takes effect upon the water or element poured, and 
the word people is governed by a preposition. Then, when 
the word baptizing in the commission is made to mean 
pour it is the water that is baptized, because it is the thing 
poured, and when it is made to mean sprinkle it is the 
water that is baptized, because it is the thing sprinkled ; 
but when it means immersing, the command can be obeyed 
by the people, for they may be immersed but can not be 
sprinkled or poured. 

But there is another difficulty involved in the idea of 
substituting sprinkling or pouring for immersion. The 



310 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

verb sprinkle means to scatter in drops, and is always fol- 
lowed by the material to be sprinkled, either expressed or 
understood. We may sprinkle blood, water, sand, or ashes 
on a man, but we can not sprinkle a man on any thing. 
We sometimes speak of sprinkling a man with water 
when we mean to sprinkle water upon him, but the lan- 
guage is an outrage upon all grammatical accuracy. If we 
say, we sprinkle a man with water, the language must 
mean one of two things : first, that we sprinkle (that is, 
scatter in drops) both the man and the water together, as 
we eat butter with our bread ; or, second, that the water 
is the instrument with which we sprinkle or scatter the 
man, as we sprinkle water with a broom. In the first con- 
struction, the noun man and water are the objects of the 
action expressed by the verb sprinkle ; and in the second 
construction, the noun man is alone the object and water 
the instrument — either of which involves a physical im- 
possibility. 

The verb pour means to turn out in a stream, and is fol- 
lowed by the thing poured, which must be something fluid 
or composed of small particles. It is as much impossible 
to pour a man as to sprinkle him. 

But those who practice sprinkling, pouring, and immer- 
sion as baptism tell us that the only authority they have 
to baptize any body is found in this verse : Matt, xxviii : 19. 
(See Louisville Debate, p. 15.) Then, when they sprinkle 
water upon any one as baptism they derive authority from 
this verse ; when they pour water upon any one as baptism 
they derive authority from this verse ; and when they im- 
merse a man in water as baptism they get their authority 
from this same verse ; hence, the word baptizing must 
mean sprinkle, pour, and immerse in this one place, in 
clear violation of the rule of interpretation, which says: 
" The sense of a word can not be diverse or multifarious at 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 3 I I 

the same time and in the same passage or expression ;" and 
again : " In no language can a word have more than one 
literal meaning in the same place." 

Sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are three separate, 
distinct, and specific acts, diverse from each other; hence 
they can not all be used as the meaning of " baptizing" in 
this place. But it may be said that sprinkle and pour are 
tropical meanings. This does not relieve the difficulty, 
for we have shown that immersing is the literal import ; 
hence, you can not give a literal and tropical meaning 
to the same word in the same place. If you do, the 
word becomes " multifarious," in violation of the laws of 
interpretation. 

Again : if sprinkling, pouring, and immersing are all 
required to make up the full import of the word indicating 
the command in this place, then no one has been baptized 
in obedience to the command until he has submitted to 
all three of these acts — that is, until he has had water 
sprinkled upon him, poured upon him, and has been im- 
mersed in it. 

But if it be insisted that in this one place the word au- 
thorizes one man to be immersed, another to have water 
sprinkled upon him, and a third to have water poured upon 
him, and that each case is a baptism, it follows that as 
they are different acts performed by different persons, each 
being a baptism, they are not one but three baptisms, and 
Paul was mistaken when he said that there is "one bap- 
tism ;" for the phrase "one baptism" as much implies that 
there is but one bnptism as does the phrase "one God" im- 
ply that there is but one God. Hence, we conclude that 
when the Lord said "go teach all nations, baptizing them," 
He intended one specific act, and not three different acts. 
This one act is baptism — nothing else is. 



312 the gospel plan of salvation. 

The Baptism of Jesus. 

We propose now to examine an example of baptism 
furnished in the baptism of Jesus by John, an account of 
which we have in Mark i : 9, 10, as follows : '• And it came 
to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of 
Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straight- 
way coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens 
opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him." 
Here we learn that Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan, 
after which He came up out of the water. For thus go- 
ing into and coming out of the water there could have 
been neither reason nor propriety had sprinkling or pour- 
ing water upon Him been the baptism to which He sub- 
mitted. It is true that in modern times we hear of per- 
sons going down into the water and having some of it 
poured or sprinkled upon them. This seems to be an 
artifice on the part of the administrator to satisfy the cred- 
ulous subject, if possible, without at all doing the thing 
commanded." Surely, none will dare say the Lord ever 
commanded such a procedure. 

But we are told that apo, the Greek word here rendered 
out of, primarily means from, and that nothing more was 
signified by it than that Jesus came up from the margin 
of the water. If apo be the correct word in, the original 
text — about which we will see directly — is it not bound, 
by the nature of the transaction, and by the meaning of 
the other words related to it in this connection, to mean 
out off Mark tells us that John baptized Jesus in Jordan. 
Hence, if the baptism took place in Jordan, must not the 
subject (Christ) come from within Jordan, or the place 
where the baptism occurred ? 

But we are told that the Greek word eis, here rendered 
in, is sometimes rendered at, and may be so translated in 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 3I3 

this passage. Hence, John simply baptized Jesus atf Jor- 
dan. But the whole force of this argument is based upon 
the primary meaning of apo ; why, then, shall we not be 
allowed to demand the primary meaning of eis ? We 
grant that primary meanings are to be preferred unless 
good reason be given for another. We dare not adopt or 
1 eject the meanings of words just as they may chance to 
favor or oppose our peculiar views. The primary mean- 
ing of eis is into, and were it so rendered, the connection 
would show that John baptized Jesus into Jordan. 

As Jordan was a river, into the water of which Jesus 
was baptized, it is easy to see why He came "up out of 
the water ;" and although apo, as contended, may primarily 
mean from, it is only from the place that eis put Him, and 
as this was into the water, the necessity of the case de- 
mands, as our rules of interpretation allow, a secondary 
meaning for apo, out of. Nor is there any thing in apo 
making it unreasonable that from, in the passage, means 
from within the water. A man might say, " I came from 
Nashville," when in truth he came from the Maxwell 
House in the very heart of the city. 

Pickering, in his Greek Lexicon, gives us an example in 
which we see that apo means out of; as, From or out of 
Egypt. He further says : " It is also used instead of the 
prepositions ek, epi,peri, and hnpo ; as, Out of a hundred and 
twenty youths one only escaped ;" thus showing us clearly 
that apo may and does often mean otit of But some of 
the very best authorities known have ek in place of apo in 
the original text, among whom we may mention Tregelles, 
Tischendorf, Alford, Greene, Bengel, Lackman, and Meyer. 

When, in connection with all this, we consider the addi- 
tional fact that the multitudes were being baptized by 
John in the river of Jordan, the conclusion that he was im- 
mersed by John in Jordan is irresistible. If John did not 
27 



314 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

baptize in the river, he did not preach in the wilderness. 
Matt, iii : 1. If Jesus was only baptized at the Jordan, 
then He was only led by the Spirit at the wilderness, for 
both are expressed by the same original word. 

We have no confidence in the pictures exhibited by de- 
baters in modern times, showing that John poured water 
on the head of the Saviour. But there is a thought or two 
connected with them to which we would solicit the atten- 
tion of the reader. We have seen some ten or twelve of 
these, each representing the scene in a different manner 
from the others. No higher evidence than this is needed to 
prove them unfaithful in delineation, for, as He was baptized 
but once, it is not possible that a dozen modes were adopted. 

Some of them represent Him as standing up to the 
waist in water, at least sufficiently deep to be immersed, 
while their criticisms upon eis and apo have Him baptized 
at or near the margin of the stream, and not in the water 
at all. Thus their own pictures contradict their criticisms. 
Truly, " the legs of the lame are unequal." 

But it isjsaid that " John baptized the people with water," 
and hence applied the water to the subject and not the 
subject to the water. And, by way of illustration, they 
give us examples like the following : " I shave with a 
razor," " I write with a pen," etc. As an offset to these 
examples we might give the following: "The tanner tans 
his leather with ooze," "The lady colors her web with 
dye," etc. Surely, it will not be insisted that the tanner 
makes his leather by sprinkling a little ooze upon it, or 
that the lady colors her web by sprinkling a few drops of 
her dye thereon. Hence, the examples given by the ob- 
jector can prove nothing. The original word from which 
we have the word with in the connection, " I indeed bap- 
tize you with water" (Matt, iii: 11 ; Mark i: 8), is the 
Greek en, the primary meaning of which is in, and which 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 315 

must be the meaning used, as our rules say, unless there 
is some circumstance compelling some other. But so fai 
from there being those compulsory circumstances, the 
other words and circumstances compel the retention of the 
primary meaning in. But we are told that e?i conveys the 
idea of instrumentality and must be rendered with if so, 
when John baptized the people (en) with the river Jordan, 
we suppose he had rather an unwieldy instrument, to say 
the least of it. 

But we are told that the fearfully impetuous current of 
the Jordan would have rendered it impossible for John to 
have stood in it and baptized the people. As the testi- 
mony of Lieut. Lynch is invoked upon this subject, it 
will be well for us to hear him upon this subject. On 
page 255 of his work titled the "Dead Sea and the 
Jordan," he says : 

" At 9:30 P. M. we arrived at ' El Meshra,' the bathing- 
place of the Christian pilgrims, after having been fifteen 
hours in the boats. This ford is consecrated by tradition 
as the place where the Israelites passed over with the ark 
of the covenant, and where our blessed Saviour was bap- 
tized by John. Feeling that it would be desecration to 
moor the boats at a place so sacred, we passed it, and with 
some difficulty found a landing below. 

" My first act was to bathe in the consecrated stream, 
thanking God first for the precious favor of being permit- 
ted to visit such a spot ; and, secondly, for his protecting 
care throughout our perilous passage. * * * Tradition, 
sustained by the geographical features of the country, 
makes this also the scene of the baptism of the Redeemer. 
The mind of man, trammeled by sin, can not soar in con- 
templation of so sublime an event. On that wondrous 
day, when the Deity, veiled in flesh, descended the bank, 
all nature, hushed in awe, looked on, and the impetuous 



3 16 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

river, in grateful homage, must have stayed its sorro\v ; 
and gently laved the body of its Lord." 

Thus it will be seen that Lieut. Lynch did not think it 
impossible for the body of the Lord to have been gently 
laved by the waters of the Jordan. 

In describing a visit by a company of pilgrims to the 
Jordan, he says : " The party which had disturbed us was 
the advanced guard of the great body of the pilgrims. At 5, 
just at the dawn of day, the last made its appearance, com- 
ing over the crest of a high ridge, in one tumultuous and 
eager throng. In all the wild haste of a disorderly rout, 
Copts and Russians, Poles, Armenians, Greeks and Syrians, 
from all parts of Asia, from Europe, from Africa, and from 
far distant America, on they came ; men, women, and 
children, of every age and hue, and in every variety of cos- 
tume ; talking, screaming, shouting, in almost every known 
language under the sun. Mounted as variously as those 
who had preceded them, many of the women and children 
were suspended in baskets or confined in cages ; and, with 
their eyes strained toward the river, heedless of all inter- 
vening obstacles, they hurried eagerly forward, and, dis- 
mounting in haste and disrobing with precipitation, rushed 
down the bank and threw themselves into the stream. 
They seemed to be absorbed by one impulsive feeling, and 
perfectly regardless of the observations of others. Each 
one plunged himself, or was dipped by another, three 
times below the surface, in honor of the Trinity ; and then 
filled a bottle or some other utensil from the river. The 
bathing-dress of many of the pilgrims was a white gown 
with a black cross upon it. Most of them, as soon as 
they dressed, cut branches either of the agnus castus or 
willow, and, dipping them in the consecrated stream, bore 
them away as memorials of their visit. 

" In an hour they began to disappear, and in less than 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 2) l 7 

three hours the trodden surface of the lately crowded bank 
reflected no human shadow. The pageant disappeared as 
rapidly as it had approached, and left to us once more the 
silence and the solitude of the wilderness. It was like a 
dream. An immense crowd of human beings — said to be 
8,000, but I thought not so many — had passed and re- 
passed before our tents and left not a vestige behind 
them. Every one bathed, a few Franks excepted, the 
greater number in a quiet and reverential manner, but 
some, I am sorry to say, displayed an ill-timed levity." 
Pages 261, 262. 

This needs no comment. We leave it with the single 
remark, that where so many in so short a time could bathe 
themselves without difficulty, surely John the Baptist could 
have had no difficulty in baptizing those who came to him. 

Rev. D. A. Randall visited the Jordan at the time of 
harvest, when it " overfloweth his banks all the time." In 
consequence of the falling rains and melting snows of the 
far distant mountains of Herman, it was near its greatest 
depth, yet he and his comrades enjoyed the pleasure of a 
bath in its waters. Handwriting of God, Part ii, p. 233. 

The river Jordan, like all other streams, has its rapids 
and its eddies, in the latter of which there are doubtless 
numerous places in which it would be safe to immerse. It 
is a little remarkable to what extremes the opponents of 
immersion will go in their zeal to show the impossibility 
of performing this act in the Jordan. Heretofore, some 
have contended that immersion could not have been the 
act, because this river is so small that "a man might step 
across it, or arrest its current with his foot," but since the 
observations of Lynch, Randall, and others have been pub- 
lished, it suddenly becomes so impetuous and deep as to 
make it impossible for John to have immersed the peo- 
ple in it. 



318 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Before leaving this part of the subject we deduce an- 
other argument in favor of immersion from John's cloth- 
ing : " John had his raiment of camel's hair and a leathern 
girdle about his loins," Matt, iii : 4; Mark i: 6. Why was 
he thus clad ? I suppose it means something or it would 
not have been recorded. Some suppose that the coarse 
hair-cloth with which he was clad was used as the best 
protection against the water. Certain it is that leathern 
girdles were then and now are used to strengthen the loins 
under physical exertion. We can see propriety in this 
girdle to sustain him while immersing the vast crowds bap- 
tized by him, but none whatever if he only sprinkled water 
upon them. Surely, his loins needed no support for such 
labor as this, since the most fashionably clad may now ad- 
minister the rite without physical effort or damage to silks 
or satins. 

As a further evidence that John practiced immersion we 
find he " was baptizing in y£non, near to Salem, because 
there was much water there." John iii : 23. Why should 
he have gone there to sprinkle or pour a few drops of water 
upon the people ? This could not have required much water. 
We suppose a single gallon would be quite sufficient for 
a modern preacher for a whole day. But we are told that 
much water was necessary to supply the people and their 
animals with drink while attending his preaching. Then 
the passage should read, "John was holding a meet- 
ing at ^Enon, near Salem, because there was much water 
there." Would not this have been much more appropriate? 
But, on the contrary, " he came into all the country about 
the Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the 
remission of sins." Luke iii : 3. Thus we see that John 
preached every-where, but when he went to baptize he 
went where there was much water. It is reasonable to 
suppose that quite as many people attended his preaching 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 319 

in the country as witnessed his baptism at JEuon, yet 
much water is not mentioned as an accommodation for 
those who attended his preaching, but is given as a reason 
for his " baptizing at ^Enon." For a beautiful description 
of the waters of ^Enon and their adaptation to the pur- 
poses for which John selected them, see Barclay's "City 
of the Great King," pp. 559-562. 

Convertible Terms. 

We now pass to the examination of a law of translation 
found in the convertibility of terms, which may be stated 
substantially in the following words : " When the correct 
meaning of a word, in a given place, is substituted for the 
word, it must make sense, and harmonize with the other 
words in construction with the word for which the substi- 
tution is made." This rule lies at the foundation of all 
translation and must obtain, though in some instances, 
from force of habit, the euphony may seem somewhat im- 
paired. Be it further observed that the demands of the 
rule are not that every meaning a word may have will make 
sense every-where it occurs, but the correct meaning of a word 
in a given place must make sense in that place. By this 
rule we will try the meaning of the word baptize in a few 
passages, and see whether or not it may mean sprinkle or 
pour — remembering, in the mean time, that sprinkle means 
to scatter in drops, and pour means to turn out in a stream. 
Let us now read the passages and submit these definitions 
to the rule stated : " Then went out to him Jerusalem and 
all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were 
sprinkled (scattered in drops) of him in Jordan, confessing 
their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees come to his sprinkling (scattering in drops) he 
said unto them," etc. Matt, iii : 5-7. Were the people scat- 
tered in drops by John in Jordan ? " He that believeth 



320 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

and is sprinkled (scattered in drops) shall be saved." Mark 
xvi : 16. "Repent and be sprinkled (scattered in drops) 
every one of you." Acts ii: 38. "When they believed 
Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of 
God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were sprinkled 
(scattered in drops), both men and women." Acts viii : 12. 
These scriptures need only to be read — no comment is 
necessary to show that sprinkle will not bear the test. 
Will pour do any better ? We will try it. " Then went 
out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan, and were poured (turned out in a 
stream) of him in Jordan." " He that believeth and is 
poured (turned out in a stream) shall be saved." " Repent 
and be poured (turned out in a stream) every one of you." 
"When they believed Philip preaching the things con- 
cerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, 
they were poured (turned out in a stream), both men and 
women." Thus we see that the sense is as completely 
destroyed by substituting pour as by sprinkle. 

Now, let us subject immersion to the same ordeal ; if it 
will do no better, away with it. " Then went out to him 
Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about 
Jordan, and were immersed of him in Jordan, confessing 
their sins." "But when he saw many of the Pharisees 
and Sadducees come to his immersion, he said unto them," 
etc. " He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved." 
" Repent and be immersed every one of you." " W T hen 
they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were 
immersed, both men and women." Thus we might try 
every place in the New Testament where the word occurs, 
and the result would be the same. A man may be im- 
mersed in water, blood, oil, grief, suffering, debt, etc., but 
sprinkled or poured he can not be, and live. 



WHAT IS BAPTISM? 321 

As the Holy Spirit was shed forth on the day of Pen- 
tecost, when the apostles were baptized with it, it is some- 
times insisted that this is the meaning of baptize. Then 
let us try it. " Go teach all nations, shedding them forth 
in the name," etc. Matt, xxviii : 19. "And they went 
down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he 
shed him forth!' Acts viii : 38. Will this do ? Once more : 
At the house of Cornelius "the Holy Ghost fell on all 
them which heard the word." Acts x : 44. It is there- 
fore insisted that fell on is the meaning of the word baptize, 
and indicates the manner in which it should be performed. 
Then we will try this also. "Go teach all nations, falling 
o?i them in the name of the Father," etc. "And they went 
down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he 
fell 071 him** We will not' offer a word of comment to 
make these definitions more ridiculously absurd than they 
are in their own native deformity. 

These illustrations clearly show that the lexicons and 
critics were right in giving immerse as the primary and 
literal meaning of baptidzo, as used in the New Testament. 
Hence the conclusion that John immersed Jesus and the 
multitudes who demanded baptism of him, in the waters 
of Jordan and ^Enon, is irresistible. To the reader, then, 
we say, "go thou and do likewise." 

The Birth of Water. 

We deduce another argument in favor of immersion 
from the language of Jesus to Nicodemus, as follows : 

" Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
can not enter into the kingdom of God." John iii : 5. 

The language "born again" is to be understood figura- 
tively, of course ; but the figure is based upon the real or 
natural birth, and as a figure must, in some sense, resem- 
ble the fact upon which it is based, so a birth of water 



322 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

must, in some sense, resemble a natural birth. Natural 
birth contemplates delivery, so when a man is born of 
water, he must be delivered from or come forth out of it. 
As he can not be delivered from or come forth out of that 
in which he has never been, it follows that a man must be 
placed in water before he can be delivered from or born of 
it. Hence, in order to be born of water, a man must be 
immersed in it that he may emerge from it. But what re- 
semblance to a birth has sprinkling or pouring water upon 
any one ? Can a man be bom of a substance less than 
himself 1 ? Such a thing is impossible with every one save 
him who practices sprinkling or pouring water as baptism. 
How a grown man or woman may be born of a drop or a 
spoonful of water is a mystery which needs explanation. 

For a full examination of the New Birth the reader is 
referred to the chapter on this subject, the object here 
being only to examine it so far as it bears upon the action 
of baptism. That the words "born of water" refer to bap- 
tism, see authorities quoted in argument based upon this 
verse in the chapter on the Design of Baptism. 

Baptism a Burial. 

" Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism." Rom. 
vi: 4. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
risen with him." Col. ii : 12. 

That these passages refer to immersion is so manifestly 
plain that it seems almost an insult to common sense to 
attempt an argument to show it. There are three things 
which, though not all in the zvord, are implied in the idea 
of a burial. First, the thing buried ; second, the thing 
buried in ; and, third, the act of burying. A burial may 
differ as to the thing buried ; it may be a seed, or it may 
be a man. It may differ as to the thing buried in ; it may 
be in earth, it may be in water, but as to the act of bury- 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. ■ 323 

ing there can be no difference ; it must be a placing in 
and covering up in every burial, whether it be a seed or a 
man, in the earth or in water. Then, when a man has a 
few drops of water sprinkled on him, is he buried ? Surely 
not. When he has a small stream poured upon him, is he 
buried ? He is not. When he is immersed in water, is he 
buried ? Most certainly he is. 

We have shown that baptism means immersion ; hence, 
when Paul said he and his brethren had been buried with 
Christ by baptism, is it not clear that he spake of that 
burial which was effected by immersion ? Lives there a 
man beneath the sun, who has only had a few drops of 
water sprinkled on him, who can approach the mercy-seat 
of Christ, and, with his hand upon his heart, say " I have 
been buried with Christ by baptism ?" We think not. 

But we are told that Paul alluded to Holy Spirit bap- 
tism. Suppose he did, does this bring any support to 
those who oppose immersion ? When they wish to make 
an argument in favor of pouring, they tell us that the Holy 
Spirit was poured upon the Pentecostians ; and as that was 
Holy Spirit baptism, water baptism must be like it, and 
therefore must be pouring. Spirit baptism and water bap- 
tism must be administered in the same way. Well, then, 
if Paul spoke of Holy Spirit baptism, it was a burial, and 
if water baptism be like it, it must also be a burial. Hence 
this passage proves baptism to be immersion, whether he 
spoke of water or Spirit. If of water, the proof is direct ; 
if of Spirit, it is by analogy, our opponents being judges. 

But did Paul allude to Holy Spirit baptism ? In sub- 
mitting to it his brethren obeyed from the heart the form 
of doctrine delivered to them. See verse 17. Luke tells us 
that Jesus commanded his disciples " That they should not 
depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the 
Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me." What 



324 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

promise ? " For John truly baptized with water ; but ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
hence." Acts i : 4, 5. Promises may be enjoyed, but can 
not be obeyed. We may obey commands, but can not 
obey promises. Then, as the baptism of the Spirit was a 
promise, and as submission to the baptism of which Paul 
spoke was obedience, it follows, clear as demonstration, 
that he spoke not of spiritual baptism. 

Commentators and critics have, with great unanimity, 
in all ages, decided that Rom. vi:4, an d Col. ii : 12, refer 
to immersion in water. At the risk of being tedious we 
will collate a few extracts, which will serve to show the 
decision of the learned on this subject : 

1. Justin Martyr, born A. D. 140 : " We represent our 
Lord's suffering by baptism in a pool." Adkins, p. 127. 

2. Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 200: "You were 
led to a bath as Christ was conveyed to the sepulchre, 
and were thrice immersed, to signify Christ's three days' 
burial." Adkins, p. 127. 

3. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 328 : 
" To immerse a child three times in a pool or bath, and to 
emerse him ; this shows the death and resurrection of 
Christ on the third day." Stuart, p. 148, Conant, Ex. 188. 

4. Gregory Nyssen, A. D. 328 : " Coming into water, 
the kindred element of earth, we hide ourselves in it as the 
Saviour did in the earth." Stuart, p. 147. " Let us, there- 
fore, be buried with Christ in baptism, that we may also 
rise with him ; let us go down with him, that we also may 
be exalted with him." Conant, Ex. 188. 

5. Ambrose, A. D. 340: "You were asked, 'Dost thou 
believe in God Almighty ?' Thou saidst, ' I believe ;' and 
thus thou wast immerged {inersisti) ; that is, thou wast 
buried." Stuart, p. 147. 

6. Chrysostom, A. D. 347 : " To be baptized and to 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. 325 

submerge, then to emerge, as a symbol of descent to the 
grave and of ascent from it. And therefore Paul calls 
baptism a burial when he says : 'We are therefore buried 
with him by baptism into death.' " Westlake, ch. 3. 
Stuart, p. 147. 

7. Apostolical Constitutions, written in the fourth 
century : " Immersion denotes dying with him (Christ) ; 
emersion a resurrection with Christ." Stuart, p. 148. 

8. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, A. D. 350 : "Thou, going 
down into the water, and in a manner buried in the waters, 
as he in the rock, art raised again, walking in newness of 
life." Conant, Ex. 176. "Ye professed the saving pro- 
fession and sunk down thrice into the water, and again 
came up, and thereby a symbol shadowing forth the burial 
of Christ." Conant, Ex. 178. 

9. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
A. D. 370 : " By three immersions we represent the death 
of Christ — the bodies of those that are baptized are buried 
in water." Conant, Ex. 181. 

10. Fourth Council of Toledo, Can. 5: "The im- 
mersion in water is, as it were, the descent into the grave, 
and the emersion from the water the resurrection." Ad- 
kins, p. 128. 

11. Photius : "The three immersions and emersions 
of baptism signify death and the resurrection." Stuart, 
p. 148. 

12. Gelasius : " The three immersions and emersions of 
baptism signify death and the resurrection." Adkins, 
p. 129. 

13. Gregory : "The three immersions and emersions of 
baptism signify death and the resurrection." Ut supra. 

14. Pelagius : " The three immersions and emersions 
of baptism signify death and the resurrection." Ut supra. 

15. Archbishop Cranmer : "The dipping into water 



326 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

doth betoken that the old Adam, with alt his sin and evil 
lusts, ought to be drowned and killed by daily contrition 
and repentance." Westlake, ch. 3. 

16. Scudder : " Baptism doth lively represent the death, 
burial, and resurrection of Christ, together with your cru- 
cifying the affections and lusts : being dead and buried 
with him unto sin, and rising with him to newness of life 
and to hope of glory." Westlake, ch. 3. 

17. Pictetus : " That immersion into and emersion out 
of the water, as practiced by the ancients, signify the death 
of the old and the resurrection of the new." Ut supra. 

18. Nicholson, Bishop of Gloucester, Expos, of Ch. Cat- 
echism : " The ancient manner of baptizing and putting the 
person baptized under the water and then taking him out 
again, did well set forth these two acts : the first his dying, 
the second his rising again. In our baptism, by a kind 
of analogy or resemblance, while our bodies are under the 
water we may be said to be buried with him." Ut supra. 

19. Dr. M anton, Chaplain to the King of England: 
" The putting the baptized person into the water denoteth 
and proclaimeth the burial of Christ, and we, by submit- 
ting to it, are buried with him, or profess to be dead to 
sin ; for none but the dead are buried ; so that it signifieth 
Christ's death for sin and our death unto sin." Ut supra. 

20. Augustine : " That thrice repeated submersion ex- 
presses a resemblance of the Lord's burial." Ut supra. 

21. Bengellius, Professor of Theology at Denkendorf, 
Germany, in 1713 : "He that is baptized puts on Christ, 
the second* Adam ; he is baptized, I say, into a whole 
Christ, and therefore into his death ; and it is like as if 
that very moment Christ suffered, died, and was buried for 
such a man, and such a man suffered, died, and was buried 
with Christ." Westlake, ch. 3. 

22. Dr. Goodwin, member of the Westminster Assem- 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. 32/ 

bly : " There is a further representation therein of Christ's 
death, burial, and resurrection, in the baptized's being first 
buried under water and then rising out of it. Therefore, 
it is said we are buried with him in baptism." Ut supra. 

23. 'Doddridge's Family Expositor on Rom. vi : 4 : 
" Buried with him in baptism. It seems to me the part 
of candor to confess that here is an allusion to the man- 
ner of baptizing by immersion." 

24. Whitby's Commentary on the New Testament — 
Note on Rom. vi : 4 : " It being so expressly declared here 
(Rom. vi : 4, and Col. ii : 12) that we are buried with Christ 
in baptism by being buried under water, and the argument 
to oblige us to a conformity to his death being taken 
hence, and this immersion being religiously observed by all 
Christians for thirteen ce7ituries f and approved by our 
church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even with- 
out any allowance from the Author of this institution, or 
any license from any council of the church, being that 
which the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the 
cup to the laity, it were to be wished that this custom 
might be of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as 
of old, in cases of the clinic or present danger of death." 
Pengilly, p. 47. 

25. Wells' Illus. Bible on Rom. vi : 4 : "St. Paul here 
alludes to immersion or dipping the whole body under 
water in baptism." Pengilly, 46. 

26. Adam Clark, Com. on Rom. vi : 4 : " When he 
[the person to be baptized] came up out of the water, he 
seemed to have a resurrection to life. He was, therefore, 
supposed to throw off his old Gentile state, as he threw 
off his clothes, and to assume a new character, as the bap- 
tized generally put on new or fresh garments." 

2J. John Edwards : " The immersion into the water 
was thought to signify the death of Christ, and their com- 



328 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ing out his rising again, and did no less represent their 
own resurrection." Pengilly, p. 49. 

29. Edinburgh Reviewers : " We have rarely met, for 
example, a more weak and fanciful piece of reasoning than 
that by which Mr. Ewing would persuade us that there is 
no allusion to the mode by immersion in the expression 
'buried with him in baptism.' This point ought to be 
frankly admitted and indeed can not be denied with any 
show of reason." Ib. y p. 47. 

30. Bloomfield's Greek Testament, note on Rom. vi : 4 : 
" By which the rite of immersion in the baptismal water 
and egress from it were used as a symbol of breaking off 
all connection with the present sinful life and giving one's 
self to a new and pure one. We have been thus buried 
in the waters of baptism. There is a plain allusion to the 
ancient custom of baptism by immersion, on which (says 
Bloomfield) see 31 Suicer's Eccl. in V. cited in 

32. Bingham's Antiquities of the Chr. Ch. : " Immer- 
sion universally prevailed, since all the ancients thought 
that burying under water did more lively represent the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ." Bloomfield also 
cites to the same effect Bishops Sherlock and Warburton. 

33. Saurin's Sermons, vol. iii, p. 176: "Paul says we 
are buried with Christ by baptism into death ; that is, the 
ceremony of wholly immersing us in water when we were 
baptized signified that we died to sin, and that of rising 
again from our immersion signified that we would no more 
return to those disorderly practices in which we lived be- 
fore our conversion to Christianity." Benedict's History, 
p. 179. 

34. Archbishop Leighton : " 'We are buried with him,' 
the dipping into the waters representing our dying with 
Christ, and the return thence our rising with him." 
Works, p. 277. 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. T> 2 9 

35. Mathies' Biblical, Historical, and Dogmatical Ex- 
position of Baptism, which obtained a prize in the Uni- 
versity of Berlin, says : '* Paul, as we have seen (Rom. vi : 
4), has in his mind only the rite of immersing and emerg- 
ing ; and in the apostolic church, in order that a commu- 
nion with the death of Christ may be signified the whole 
body of the person to be baptized was immersed in the 
water or river, and then, in order that a connection with 
the resurrection of Christ might be indicated, the body 
again emerged or raised out of the water. That this rite 
has been changed is indeed a calamity, for it is placed be- 
fore the eyes most aptly the symbolical meaning of bap- 
tism." Dr. I. Chase, on Bap., pp. 50, 51. 

36. Rosenmuller, Professor of Theology at Leipsic, 
says : M Immersion in the water of baptism and coming 
forth out of it was a symbol of a person's renouncing his 
former life, and, on the contrary, of beginning a new one. 
The learned have rightly reminded us that, on account of 
this emblematical meaning of baptism, the rite of immer- 
sion ought to have been retained in the Christian church." 
I. Chase on Bap., p. 49. 

37. Jaspis, in his Latin version of the Epistles, says : 
"Paul in this place (Rom. vi : 4) alludes to the custom 
then usual of immersing the whole body, which immersion 
resembled the laying of a man in a sepulchre." Ut supra, 
p. 49. 

38. Turretin : " For as in baptism, when performed in 
the primitive manner, by immersion and emersion, descend- 
ing into the water and again going out of it, of which de- 
scent and ascent we have an example in the eunuch, in 
Acts viii: 38, 39. Yea, and what is more, as by this rite, 
when persons are immersed in water they are overwhelmed, 
and as it were buried, and in a manner buried together 
with Christ ; and again they emerge, seem to be raised out 

28 



330 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of a grave, and are said to be risen again with Christ." 
Frey on Baptism, p. 186. 

39. Theophylact, a Greek commentator on Col. ii : 12 
" Baptism typifies by immersion the death, by emersion the 
resurrection of Christ." Adkins, p. 128. 

40. Leo, bishop of Rome, Decret. 9 : " Trine immersion 
represents the three days' burial of Christ." Ut supra. 

41. Theobuck, on Rom. vi : 4 : " In order to understand 
the figurative use of baptism we must bear in mind the 
well-known fact that the candidate in the primitive church 
was immersed in water and raised out of it again." Ut 
supra, p. 130. 

42. Winer, in his Manuscript Letters on Christian An- 
tiquities, says : "In the apostolic age baptism was immer- 
sion, as its symbolical explanation shows." Ut supra. 

43. Prof. Lang, on Infant Baptism, 1834: "As Christ 
died, so we die (to sin) with him in baptism. The body is 
as it were buried under water, is dead with Christ ; the 
plunging under water represents death, and rising out of 
it the resurrection to a new life. A more striking symbol 
could not be chosen." Ut supra. 

44. Dr. Jortin's Sermons. Of the baptized he says : 
" He that descended into the water and stooped or laid 
down in it — this represents death and the grave. His 
ascending out of the water under which he had been hid- 
den represents the resurrection of Christ for our justifi- 
cation, and the new life and second birth of the baptized 
person, who was thenceforward to live to God and to do 
good works." Frey on Bap., pp. 128, 129. 

45. Superville, Pastor of the French Protestant Church 
at Rotterdam, says : " You know that in ancient times 
baptism was administered by immersion, so that the person 
who was baptized, being entirely plunged into the water, 
appeared for a moment as one dead and buried ; after 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. 33 1 

which, emerging from the water, he seemed as one rising 
from the dead. Hence the language of the apostle in 
Rom. vi : 4, Col. ii : 12," Ut supra. 

46. Burmannus, Synop. Theol.: " Immersion was used 
by the Jews, the apostles, and the primitive church, espe- 
cially in warm countries. To this, various forms of speak- 
ing used by the apostles refer : Rom. vi : 4, Col. ii : 12, etc." 
Frey, p. 132. 

46. Peter Martyr : " As Christ by baptism hath drawn 
us into his death and burial, so he hath drawn us out into life. 
This doth the dipping into the waters and the issuing forth 
again signify when we are baptized." Westlake, ch. iii. 

47. Albert Barnes : " It is altogether probable that 
the apostle in this place had allusion to the custom of 
baptizing by immersion." Note on Rom. vi : 4. 

48. Estius : " Immersion, in a more expressive manner, 
represents the death, burial, and resurrection of our v Lord 
and of us." Frey, p. 150. 

49. Braunus, in his Doctrina Federum : " By baptism we 
are plunged under water, and, as it were, buried; but we 
do not continue in a state of death, for we immediately rise 
again from thence, to signify that we, through the merits 
of Christ, and with Christ, mortify the old man, are buried 
with Christ, and with him arise to newness of life." 
Haynes' Bap. Cyclopedia, p. 78. 

50. Dr. Boys' Works : " The dipping, in holy baptism, 
has three parts : the putting into the water, the continu- 
ance in the water, and the coming out of the water. The 
putting into the water doth ratify the mortification of sin 
by the power of Christ's death, as Paul in Rom. vi : 4." 
Ut supra, p. 99. 

51. Rheinhard's Ethics: "In sprinkling, the symbol- 
ical meaning of the ordinance is wholly lost." Hinton's 
History Bap., p. 52. 



332 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

52. Bishop Burnett's Expos, of the Thirty-nine Arti- 
cles, pp. 374, 375 : " They (the primitive ministers of the 
gospel) led them into the water, and with no other gar- 
ments but what might cover nature. They first laid them 
down in the water, as a man is buried in a grave, and then 
they said the words 'I baptise thee in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost! Then they raised them up 
again, and clean garments were put on them, from whence 
came the phrases of being baptized into Christ's death, of 
our being buried with him by baptism into death, being bap- 
tized into Christ's death, of our being risen with Christ, and 
of our putting on CJirist, putting off the old man and putting 
071 the new man!' 

53. Cardinal Cajetan : " ' We are buried with him by 
baptism into death! By our burying he declares our death 
from the ceremony of baptism : because he who is bap- 
tized is put under the water, and by this bears a likeness 
of him that was buried, who is put under the earth. Now, 
because none are buried but dead men, from this very 
thing we are buried in baptism, we are assimilated to 
Christ when he was buried. Christ ascended out of the 
water, therefore he was baptized by John, not by sprink- 
ling or pouring water upon him, but by immersion." 
Booth's Ped. Ex. 

54. Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity : " As in immer- 
sion there are, in a manner, three several acts, the putting 
a person into the water, his abiding there for a little time, 
and rising again ; so by these were represented Christ's 
death, burial, and resurrection, and in conformity there- 
unto our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and 
our resurrection to a new course of life. By the persons 
being put into water was lively represented the putting off 
the body of the sins of the flesh, and being washed from 
the filth and pollution of them," etc. Booth's Ped. Ex. 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. 333 

55. Bishop Davenant, of Salisbury, Eng., 1641, Expo- 
sition of Col. ii : 12 : "In baptism, the burial of the body 
of sin, or of the old Adam, is represented when the person 
to be baptized is put down into the water, as a resurrec- 
tion when he is brought out of it." Hay nes' Bap. Cyclo- 
pedia, p. 186. 

60. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, in his Paraphrase and 
Annotations on St. Paul's Epistles, Rom. vi : 4 : " The prim- 
itive fashion of immersion under the water representing 
our death, and elevation out of it our resurrection, our re- 
generation." Ut supra, pp. 246, 247. 

61. Dr. Quenstedt, (Lutheran) : "Immersion is similar 
to a burial ; emersion, to a resurrection." Wiberg, p. 83. 

62. Ch. Stark : " The apostle has reference to the then 
prevailing custom, according to which the candidate was 
entirely immersed in water, and after he had been left 
under a little while, was again taken up out of it. Bap- 
tism, consequently, does not only contain the image and 
power of the death of Christ, but of his burial ; so that, as 
the Lord, by his burial, has done away with the curse that 
lay upon him, we also might be partakers of his burial 
when we were laid down under the water as in a grave and 
covered with it." Wiberg, p. 113. 

63. Locke : " We did own some kind of a death by be- 
ing buried under the water — even so we, being raised from 
our typical death and burial in baptism, should lead a new 
sort of life." Campbell and Rice, p. 235. 

64. Dr. G. C. Knapp : " The image is here taken from 
baptized persons as they were immerged (buried) and as 
they emerged (rose again) ; so it was understood by Chry- 
sostom." TheoL, vol. ii, p. 525. 

Macknight : " In baptism, the baptized person is buried 
under water, as one put to death with Christ on account 
of sin, in order that they may be strongly impressed with 



334 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

a sense of the malignity of sin and excited to hate it as 
the greatest of evils." On Epist., vol. i, p. 259. 

" Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried 
under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, 
as an emblem of his future death and resurrection. In 
like manner the baptism of believers is emblematical of his 
own death, burial, and resurrection." On Rom. vi : 4. 

66. John Wesley : " Buried with him — alluding to the 
ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." Notes on 
Rom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii : 12. 

6j. George Whitfield : " It is certain that, in the 
words of our text, Rom. vi : 4, there is an allusion to the 
manner of baptizing, which was immersion." Pengilly, 

P-47- 

68. Dr. Wall : " St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way 
of speaking, call baptism a burial." Defense of Hist, of 
Infant Bap., 131. 

68. Archbishop Tillotson : " Anciently, those who 
were baptized were immersed and buried in the water, to 
represent their death to sin, and then did rise up out of 
the water, to signify their entrance upon the new life ; and 
to these customs the apostle alludes in Rom. vi : 4." Pen- 
gilly, p. 46. 

69. Archbishop Seeker : " Burying, as it were, the per- 
son in the water and raising him out again, without ques- 
tion, was anciently the more usual method, on account of 
which St. Paul speaks of baptism as representing the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and what is 
grounded on them — our being dead and buried to sin, and 
our rising again to walk in newness of life." Pengilly, p. 46. 

70. Samuel Clarke : " We are buried with Christ by 
baptism, etc. In the primitive times the manner of baptiz- 
ing was by immersion, or dipping the whole body into water. 
And this manner of doing it was a very significant emblem 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. 335 

of the dying and rising again referred to by St. Paul in the 
above mentioned similitude." Ibid. 

71. Burkitt's Notes on the New Testament. On Rom. 
vi : 4 : " The apostle alludes, no doubt, to the ancient man- 
ner and way of baptizing persons in those hot countries, 
which was by immersion or putting them under the water 
for a time, and raising them up again out of the water, 
which rite had also a mystical signification, representing 
the burial of our old man, sin in us, and our resurrection 
to newness of life." 

72. Olshausen's Commentary on Rom. vi: 4: "In this 
passage we are by no means to refer the baptism merely 
to their own resolutions, or see in it merely a figure in 
which the one-half of the ancient baptismal rite — the sub- 
mersion merely prefigures the death and burial of the old 
man — the second half the emersion, the resurrection of the 
new man." 

73. Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epist. of St. 
Paul: "Baptism was immersion, the convert being plunged 
beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to 
sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to repre- 
sent his resurrection to a life of righteousness." Also on 
Rom. vi : 4 : " This passage can not be understood unless it 
is borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by im- 
mersion." 

74. Dr. Hammond on Rom. vi : 4 : "It is a thing that 
every Christian knows, that the immersion in baptism refers 
to the death of Christ ; the putting of the person into the 
water denotes and proclaims the death and burial of 
Christ." Haynes' Last Reply to Cook and Towne, p. 107. 

75. Bishop Hoadley : " If baptism had been then per- 
formed as it is now among us, we should never so much as 
heard of this form of expression, of dying and rising again 
in this rite." Ibid. 



33^ THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

76. Dr. Storr and Flatt's Biblical Theol., Andover, 
1826: "The disciples of our Lord could understand his 
command in no other manner than as enjoining immersion ; 
and that they actually did understand it so is proved partly 
by those passages of Scripture which evidently allude to 
immersion : Acts viii : 36, Rom. vi : 4." Ut supra. 

77. Martin Luther : "Baptism is a sign of both death 
and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would 
have those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped 
into the water, as the word doth express and the mystery 
doth signify." Ut supra, pp. 109, no. 

78. Dr. R. Newton, on Rom. vi : 4 : " Baptism was 
usually performed by immersion or dipping the whole 
body under the water, to represent the death, burial, and 
resurrection of Christ together." Slack's Reasons for 
Becoming a Bap., p. 56. 

79. Richard Baxter : " It is commonly confessed by 
us of the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that 
in the apostles' times the baptized were dipped over-head 
in the water, and that this signified their profession both 
of the believing the burial and resurrection of Christ, and 
of their own present renouncing of the world and flesh, or 
of dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to 
newness of life, or being buried and risen again with 
Christ, as the apostle expoundeth in the fore cited texts." 
Westlake, ch. v. 

80. Bishop Smith : " Buried in baptism — all continue to 
render the fact as early ascertained far more reconcilable 
with Scripture than any contrary theory can be. If any 
one practice of the early churches is clearly ascertained, 
it is immersion." Bliss' Letters, p. 24. 

81. Westminster Assembly of Divines, Annotations 
on Rom. vi:4: "'Buried with him in baptism.' In this 
phrase the apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner 



BAPTISM A BURIAL. 337 . 

of baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and as 
it were bury them under water." Judson, p. 24. 

82. William Tyndale : " The plunging into the water 
signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as con- 
cerning the old life of sin, which is in Adam ; and the pull- 
ing out again signifieth that we rise again with Christ in a 
new life." Westlake, p. 5. 

83. Dr. Chalmers on Rom. vi: 4: "In the act of de- 
scending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an 
old life, and in the act of ascending, to emerge into a sec- 
ond or new life — along the course of which it is our part 
to maintain a strenuous avoidance of sin." 

84. Grotius : " Buried with him by baptism. Not only 
the word baptism, but the very form of it, intimates this. 
For an immersion of the whole body in water so that it is 
no longer beheld, bears an image of that burial which is 
given to the dead. So Col. ii: 12. There was in baptism, 
as administered in former times, an image both of a burial 
and of a resurrection, which in respect of Christ was ex- 
ternal, in regard to Christians internal." Rom. vi : 4. 
Booth on Pedobaptism, abridged by Bryant, p. 52. 

85. Church of England: "As we be buried with 
Christ by our baptism into death, so let us daily die to sin, 
mortifying and killing the evil motions thereof. And as 
Christ was raised up from death by the glory of the Father, 
so let us rise to a new life and walk continually therein." 
Homily of the Resurrection, Booth, pp. $2, 53. 

86. Wolfius : " Immersion into water, in former times, 
and a short continuance under the water, practiced by the 
ancient church, afford the representation of a burial in 
baptism." Curcz, ad Rom. vi : 4. 

87. Bishop Pearce : " It seems to have been a metaphor 
taken from the custom of those days in baptizing, for the 
person baptized went down under the water and was (as it 

2Q 



338 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

were) buried under it. Hence St. Paul says, in Rom. vi : 4, 
and Col. ii : 12, that they were buried with Christ by bap- 
tism." Ibid, p. 68. 

88, 89. Bishop Sherlock and Bishop Warburton are 
cited to the same effect in Bloomfield on Rom. vi : 4 ; and 
still others might be given, but surely the reader is ready 
to say with us, these are enough. This list is mostly 
-made up of those who practiced sprinkling and pouring, 
and surely were not influenced by any disposition to favor 
immersion, but when speaking as scholars and critics were 
compelled to testify to the truth, whether for or against 
their practice. The reader will please observe that some 
of them lived early in the second century ; and we have 
taken some from every period in the history of the church 
from then until now, thus showing that, almost with one 
voice, the learned of all ages and countries testify that this 
passage refers to the ancient custom of baptizing by im- 
mersion. Surely, nothing but a cause reduced to despera- 
tion would demand of its advocates a departure from a 
meaning so plainly taught by all these authorities floating 
(as it were) upon the very surface of this passage. 

Baptism a Washing. 

" Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of 
faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience 
and our bodies washed with pure water." Heb. x : 22. 

That the apostle here alludes to baptism is very gen- 
erally admitted. He had been reasoning on the subject 
of the Jewish priesthood and the process of consecration 
connected with it, a partial account of which we have as 
follows: " Thus shalt Aaron come into the holy place: 
with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a 
burnt-offering. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and 
he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall 



BAPTISM A WASHING. 339 

be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre 
shall he be attired : these are holy garments ; therefore shall 
he wash his flesh, and so put them on." Lev. xvi : 3, 4. 

Under the Christian dispensation every Christian is re- 
garded as a priest. Speaking of his brethren, Peter said : 
11 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, 
an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices accept- 
able to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. ii : 5. Again, 
verse 9, he says : " Ye are a chosen generation, a royal 
priesthood." As Christians are priests, we can see a 
peculiar fitness in Paul's allusion to the washing of a 
Jewish priest in the ceremony of his consecration, illus- 
trative of the washing of a Christian in the ceremony 
of his consecration. That it did not consist in the ap- 
plication of a small quantity of water to the face may be 
seen in the fact that the same general term flesh is used 
to indicate the extent of the washing, that is used to 
indicate the parts on which the priestly garments were 
worn. That the Jews understood the phrase wash the 
flesh in the sense of bathing the whole body may be seen 
in the washing of Naaman. " Elisha sent a messenger 
unto him, saying, Go wash in Jordan seven times, and 
thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be 
clean * * * Then went he down, and dipped himself 
seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man 
of God ; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of 
a little child, and he was clean." 2 Kings v: 10-14. 

Here we see that Naaman was commanded to wash 
himself seven times in Jordan ; and, guided by those who 
are presumed to have understood what was meant, he 
dipped himself. That he correctly obeyed the command 
is evident from the fact that he dipped himself according 
to the saying of the man of God, and God recognized his 
act by curing him of his leprosy. This case throws a 



340 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

flood of light upon all the Jewish washings, and clearly 
shows what they did when they washed themselves, or 
any thing else, in accordance with their law. The word 
dipped, which expresses the act performed by Naaman, is 
from the Hebrew word taval, which the seventy Jews who 
translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek rendered 
baptidzo, the very word which the Lord subsequently em- 
ployed to indicate baptism. Then, as King James' trans- 
lators gave us dip as the English equivalent of taval, and 
the Jewish translators gave us baptidzo as its Greek rep- 
resentative, it follows that, in the judgment of the seventy 
scholars who made the Septuagint, and the forty-seven 
who made the common version, baptidzo in Greek and dip 
in English are synonymous. And since things which are 
equal to the same thing are equal to each other, it follows 
that baptidzo in Greek and dip in English, being equal to 
taval in Hebrew, are equal to each other, hence dip is 
demonstrably the proper translation of baptidzo. 

In confirmation of our position on Heb. x : 22, we quote 
Bloomfield as follows : " This is not an admonition to cor- 
poreal purity, but the expression turns wholly on a com- 
parison with the legal rite of washing for purification ; and 
there is an allusion to baptism, as also in the foregoing ex- 
pression we have a parallel with a Jewish rite. The Jews 
(to use the words of Prof. Stuart) were sprinkled with 
blood in order that they might be purified, so as to have 
access to God — Christians are internally sprinkled ; i. e., 
purified by the blood of Jesus. The Jews were washed 
with water in order to be ceremonially purified, so as to 
come before God — Christians have been washed by the 
purifying water of baptism." The reader will observe that 
in this quotation we have not only the authority of Dr. 
Bloomfield, but also that of Prof. Stuart, approvingly 
quoted by him. 



BAPTISM A WASHING. 341 

But Paul speaks of the body as washed in pure water. 
We are a little curious to know how it is that a drop of 
water applied to the head can be regarded as a washing of 
the body. The Greek word lelumenoi here used indicates 
a washing of the whole body, while niflsos thai is used to in- 
dicate a partial washing, as the hands or feet. (See Mac- 
knight on this verse.) It occurs to us that had the Lord 
intended a topical application of water in baptism He 
would have designated the part to which it should be ap- 
plied. Surely, this was not a matter unworthy of note, for 
in matters perhaps less significant the parts involved are 
specifically named. When God instituted circumcision in 
the family of Abraham, He specifically named the part to 
be excised. When a man was slain by unknown hands 
among the Jews, the elders of the city next to him were to 
" wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the 
valley." Deut. xxi : 6. When Jesus washed the disciples' 
feet, the parts washed are specifically mentioned. John 
xiii : 5. When Aaron and his sons were going to enter 
the tabernacle, they had to wash their hands and their feet. 
Ex. xl : 31. In the consecration of a Jewish priest, there 
were applications to be made to the head, the tip of the 
right ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of 
the right foot, and each part is specifically designated. 
Then, if it were important to thus designate specifically 
and plainly each part to which an application was to be 
made in the examples given, it was not less important that 
the part to be wet in the act of baptism should have been 
designated with at least equal precision. Why should not 
Paul have mentioned this part, in place of the body, which 
he said was washed in pure water ? We respectfully sug- 
gest that there is quite as much Scriptural authority for 
baptizing the hand or foot as there is for baptizing the 
head, and we may justly demand by what law of Christ or 



342 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

by what example of the apostles is any one authorized to 
apply water to the face or the head rather than to the 
hands, the feet, or any other part of the body ? 

Baptism of the Eunuch. 

" And as they went on their way, they came unto a Cer- 
tain water ; and the eunuch said, See, here is water ; what 
doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip said, If thou 
believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he an- 
swered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still ; 
and they went down both into the water, both Philip and 
the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were 
come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught 
away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more ; and he 
went on his way rejoicing." Acts viii : 36-39. 

We call the reader's attention to the progressive steps 
in the foregoing narrative and to the force of the several 
prepositions used. First, while on their journey, they 
came unto a certain water. This brings them to or at the 
water. Secondly, they went down into the water 'where 
the baptism took place. Thirdly, they come up out of the 
water. All this is perfectly rational if immersion was the 
act performed, but worse than useless if sprinkling or 
pouring was what was done. If the phrase come unto a cer- 
taiii water brought them to or at it, it follows that, if the 
phrase they went down into the water moved them at all, it 
must have carried them beyond its margin, hsnce a prepo- 
sition indicating motion, into, was used to indicate the 
thought. We have into from the Greek word eis, which 
primarily means motion toward or into, and is, therefore, 
correctly rendered in the passage before us. Out of is 
from ek t the primary meaning of which is, not from, but 
out of, just as here rendered; and when construed with 



BAPTISM OF THE EUNUCH. 343 

water, as it is here, it must mean literally out of the water; 
hence eis must have taken them just as far into the water 
as ek brought them out of it. If this language does not 
show that they really and literally went down into and 
came up out of the water, then we submit that it is beyond 
the power of language to express or embody the thought. 
No more appropriate language could have been used. 

We have already seen that the rules of translation re- 
quire the primary meanings of words to be retained unless 
good reasons be shown for their removal. Therefore, if 
we substitute the secondary meanings of eis and ek in the 
passage under consideration for into and out of, their pri- 
mary meanings, there must be a better reason shown for 
it than the salvation of a favorite theory or the support of 
an unscriptural practice. 

But as it is said that eis in this passage should be ren- 
dered at or near to, it may be well to examine a few pas- 
sages where the word occurs. "It is better for thee to 
enter (eis) into life halt or maimed, rather than having two 
hands or two feet to be cast (eis) into everlasting fire." 
" And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from 
thee : it is better for thee to enter (eis) into life with one 
eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast (eis) into hell- 
fire." Matt, xviii : 8, 9. Here are four examples of eis in 
this quotation, which might be as correctly rendered at as 
in Acts viii: 38: thus, enter at life — cast at everlasting- 
fire, etc. Again : " Depart from me, ye cursed, (eis) into 
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 
Matt, xxv : 41. It would rejoice the hearts of many if eis 
in this place could be rendered at or near by. Verse 46 : 
" And these shall go away (eis) into everlasting 'punish- 
ment : but the righteous (eis) into life eternal." Matt. xxv. 
46. While the translation of eis by at in the verse might 
bring joy to the wicked, it would destroy the hopes and 



344 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

happiness of the righteous. Numerous examples might be 
given, but these are deemed sufficient to show the ab- 
surdity of translating eis otherwise than by into, its pri- 
mary meaning, in passages similar to the one under con- 
sideration. 

But Prof. Stuart says " that if the phrase 'they both went 
down into the water is meant to designate the action of 
plunging or being immersed into the water, as a part of 
the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the 
eunuch ; for the sacred writer says that both went into the 
water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptizing of Philip, 
and, what is at least singular, he must have baptized him- 
self as well as the eunuch." Stuart on Bap., p. 97. 

Here is a false issue made over a most ridiculous quib- 
ble by a truly great man ; and we may well ask whether 
truth ever demands of its advocates a resort to such sup- 
port ? We insist that the very fact of such transcendent 
ability as Prof. Stuart possessed being reduced to such 
straits is evidence that he had a hard cause to defend. 
He knew well that the act of baptism was not expressed by 
the phrase "they both went down into the water," but was 
expressed by the phrase " he baptized him." All that is 
claimed for the language they both went down into the 
water, where the baptizing was done, and afterward came 
up out of the water is that it expresses acts wholly incom- 
patible with the notion that baptism was sprinkling or 
pouring, but perfectly harmonious with the idea that Philip 
immersed the eunuch. Why was it necessary that Philip 
and the eunuch should have gone down into the water, or 
to have even got out of the chariot at all ? When he com- 
manded 'the chariot to stand still, why did he not order the 
driver to bring a pitcher, bowl, or cup of water with which 
to baptize the nobleman ? Surely, any one traveling in 
such style, and so far as was this nobleman, might well be 



BAPTISM OF THE EUNUCH. 345 

presumed to have such vessels. Nor will it do to presume 
them unworthy of mention had they been employed in 
connection with the sacred rite, for when Jesus washed 
the disciples' feet the basin that contained the water, and 
the towel wherewith he was girded were both thought 
worthy of their notice and are therefore recorded. Was 
the use of such implements of any more importance con- 
nected with the washing of feet, than a bowl, pitcher, or 
cup would have been in connection with baptism, had any 
such thing been employed ? Is it not a little remarkable 
that we have no account of Peter, James, John, or Philip's 
taking a little water from any such vessel for the purpose 
of baptizing any one, since for the want of any such facility 
they were compelled sometimes to leave the house at mid- 
night in order to perform "this rite ? Not only so, but we 
find them going where there was much water — baptizing in 
a river — going down into and coming up out of the water, 
none of which is more worthy of note than would have 
been a bowl or pitcher had it been employed. 

But it is insisted that, as the eunuch was reading the 
53d chapter of Isaiah when Philip approached him, it is 
likely he had previously read the 52d chapter, the 15th 
verse of which says, " So shall he sprinkle many nations," 
and as Philip preached Jesus as the party referred to, when 
he came to the water the eunuch concluded that there was 
a suitable place for him to be sprinkled, as one of a nation 
referred to. We have the word sprinkle in Isaiah lii : 15, 
from the Hebrew word nazah, which Gesenius thus de- 
fines : " To leap, to spring, to exult, to leap for joy ; when 
applied to liquids, to spirt, to spatter, to be sprinkled." 
The reader will please note the fact that the word nazah 
only means to be sprinkled in the passive form, and only 
then when it refers to liquids ; and as in Isaiah it refers 
to nations and not liquids, this meaning will not apply. 



346 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Hence, we must adopt one of the first meanings, and these 
are all expressive of joy or rejoicing. 

A distinguished scholar renders this verse : " So shall 
many nations exult on account of him." Bail. Man'l, p. 271. 
Perhaps the thought would be correctly expressed thus : 
" Many nations shall rejoice at his coming." Dr. Barnes, 
the celebrated Presbyterian commentator, says : " It may be 
remarked that whichever of the above senses is assigned, 
it furnishes no argument for the practice of sprinkling in 
baptism. It refers to the fact of his purifying or cleansing 
the nations, and not to the ordinance of Christian bap- 
tism ; nor should it be used as an argument in reference to 
the mode in which that should be administered." Com. on 

Isa. lii: 15. 

Baptism of the Jailer. 

''And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they 
cast them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them 
safely. Who, having received such a charge, thrust them 
into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. 
And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises 
unto God : and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly 
there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of 
the prison were shaken ; and immediately all the doors 
were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the 
keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing 
the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would 
have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been 
fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself 
no harm ; for we are all here. Then he called for a light, 
and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before 
Paul and Silas ; and brought them out,~and said, Sirs, what 
must I do to be saved ? And they said, Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 
And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all 



BAPTISM OF THE JAILER. 347 

that were in his house. And he took them the same hour 
of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, 
he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought 
them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, 
believing in God with all his house." 

It is insisted by those who oppose immersion that the 
jailer was baptized in the house at or after midnight, and 
hence was baptized by sprinkling or pouring. We frankly 
admit that, should we find, on examination, he was baptized 
in the house, it would raise a presumption in favor of their 
hypothesis, but, still, it would not be conclusive, for per- 
sons are often now and might then have been immersed in 
the house. On the other hand, should we find that he left 
the house, at the time indicated, in order to be baptized, it 
must raise a strong presumption in favor of immersion. 

Let us, then, very carefully examine as to how this was. 
" Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into 
the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks." 
Here we find that Paul and Silas were lodged in the inner 
prison. Let us watch them closely, and see how and when 
they leave and whither they go. 

" Then he [the jailer] called for a light, and sprang in, 
and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 
and brought them out." Out where ? " And they spake 
unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his 
house." Here we learn that the jailer had brought them 
from the inner prison into his house where the preaching 
was done. 

"And he took them the same hour of the night, and 
washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, 
straightway." Remember that the preaching took place 
in the house, then the jailer took them to a place where 
there was water enough to wash their stripes and to bap- 
tize him and all his. Was this in the house ? Surely not. 



34^ i'HE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

For in the next verse we are informed that " when he had 
brought them into his house, he set meat before them." 
How could it be said that they were brought into the house 
after baptism if they had not left the house to be bap- 
tized ? Seeing, then, that they were not baptized in the 
house, but left it in the night to be baptized, we claim the 
benefit of a strong presumption in favor of immersion — 
for surely no one would now think of leaving the house, at 
such an hour of the night, to sprinkle or pour a few drops 
of water on any one in lieu of baptism. 

But we are told that, in the morning Paul and Silas 
refused to leave the prison, and it is unlikely they would 
have left it the night before as it would have been dissem- 
bling in them to do so. We beg the objector to remember 
that it was one thing to leave the prison in company with 
their keeper in the discharge of sacred duty and return in 
ample time to be ready to meet the charges which had 
been preferred against them, and quite another thing to 
leave the prison and the city privately, without a trial or 
an honorable acquittal, thus furnishing their enemies with 
a pretext for saying they had fled from justice. They had 
given abundant evidence of the fact that they did not wish 
to escape, by not leaving the prison when the doors were 
opened and their bands loosed ; and as he had saved the 
jailer from a violent death at his own hands, it is reason- 
able to suppose that his confidence in them was such as 
allowed no fears of efforts on their part to escape. 

All things considered, we are driven to the only prob- 
able solution of the matter — which is, that they left the 
house and went to where there was water in which to be 
immersed and were immersed. 

In commenting on a phrase in the writings of Justin 
Martyr [They are led out by us to a place where there is 
water], Prof. Stuart says : "lam persuaded that this pas- 



THE BAPTISM OF PAUL. 349 

sage, as a whole, most naturally refers to immersion ; for 
why, on any other ground, should the convert who is to be 
initiated go out to the place where tJiere is water t There 
could be no need of this if mere sprinkling, or partial affu- 
sion only, was customary in the time of Justin." Stuart 
on Baptism, p. 144. 

Now, if the fact that going to a place where there was 
water to baptize, in the days of Justin, was evidence of im- 
mersion, why is not the same fact evidence that the jailer 
was immersed, especially when we remember that he went 
at or after midnight ? If Prof. Stuart's conclusion was a 
reasonable deduction from the language of Justin (and we 
think it certainly was), why does he not come to a like 
conclusion as to the baptism of the jailer? Yea, why 
should we not come to a- like conclusion in a case sur- 
rounded by similar circumstances ? That he did leave the 
house to be baptized is as certain as the language of Holy 
Writ can make any thing, yet Prof. Stuart gives the bap- 
tism of the jailer as one of three cases where immersion 
was not the act performed. As to whether or not he is 
consistent the reader will judge for himself. 

The Baptism of Paul. 

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord." Acts xxii : 16. 

It would have been wholly unnecessary that Paul should 
arise to have water sprinkled or poured on him, but indis- 
pensable to his being immersed, as he could not go to a 
place suited to immersion without arising, while water 
could just as easily have been sprinkled or poured upon 
him lying, sitting, or in any other position, as standing, 
without the necessity of arising. Hence, the fact that he 
was told to arise raises a presumption that he was im- 
mersed ; and this presumption is made a certainty by his 



350 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

own declaration that he was " buried with Christ by bap- 
tism!' Rom. vi : 4. 

Baptism of the Israelites. 

" Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant 
how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all 
passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea." 1 Cor. x: 1, 2. 

That the baptism of the Israelites unto Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea, was in some sense typical of our bap- 
tism into Christ, is very generally admitted. As we will 
have occasion to introduce proof of this when we come to 
look for the design of baptism, we will not introduce it here. 

In what sense are we to understand baptism in this pas- 
sage ? In a literal or figurative sense ? If in a literal 
sense, the baptism consisted in specific action, as we have 
seen that the word primarily and literally indicates specific 
action. 

Was there specific action in this baptism ? If so, what 
was it ? The Israelites were not dipped in the cloud and 
in the sea, nor were they sprinkled or poured in the cloud 
and in the sea. Hence, the specific act of dipping, sprink- 
ling, nor pouring was in this baptism. Therefore, we con- 
clude the baptism was figurative, not literal. As figures 
are based upon facts, and must resemble them, we may ex- 
pect this figurative baptism in some sense to resemble the 
literal one. The word baptidzo is sometimes used meto- 
nymically ; that is, the result reached by the specific action 
indicated by the term is put for the act itself. In such 
cases the result must be such as to resemble that produced 
by the specific act. The specific act indicated by baptidzo 
being dipping or immersion, the result must always be 
such as to resemble that produced by dipping or immer- 
sion — namely, overwhelming or burial. These things pre- 



. BAPTISM OF THE ISRAELITES. 351 

raised, we are now prepared to read an account of this 
baptism recorded in Exodus xiv : 15-31, the sixteenth 
verse of which says to Moses : " Lift thou up thy rod and 
stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it : and the 
children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the 
midst of the sea." Again, verses 19-22 : "And the angel 
of God which went before the camp of Israel, removed and 
went behind them ; and the pillar of the cloud went from 
before their face, and stood behind them : And it came be- 
tween the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel ; 
and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light 
by night to these: so that the one came not near the 
other all the night. And Moses stretched out his hand 
over the sea ; and the Lord caused the sea to go back 
by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry 
land, and the waters were divided. And the children of 
Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground, 
and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand 
and on their left." Thus we see what Paul meant when 
he said they were under the cloud and passed through the 
sea. And as he understood baptism to be a burial (Rom. 
vi : 4; Col. ii: 12), it is not strange that he should call the 
passage of the Israelites through the sea and under the 
cloud a baptism, for truly they were buried, the sea being 
a wall on their right hand and on their left, and the cloud 
over and behind them. 

But we are told that the Israelites were baptized by 
spray blown from the sea in their passage. When we 
remember that the hosts of Israel numbered six hundred 
thousand men, besides women and children, and that 
they all passed through the sea in a single night, taking 
every thing possessed by them, it will be seen that an 
opening several miles in width must have been required 
for their passage ; and as a wind could blow spray but in 



3$2 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

one direction, and as it would fall much thicker and heavier 
on the side next its source, it must have deluged those on 
one side in order to have reached those of the other side 
at all, and yet we are told that all passed on dry ground. 
But, worse still, the sacred historian tells us that "the 
waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as 
an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the 
sea." Ex. xv : 8. Now, it occurs to us that such a wind 
as would have blown congealed water, in spray, upon the 
Israelites would have blown them to the promised land 
before the time, or lifted them over the sea without pass- 
ing through it at all. 

But it is said that the Psalmist comes to the aid of the 
objector, saying: "The clouds poured out water." Psalm 
lxxvii: 17. But it will be observed that clouds, in the 
plural, poured out water, while it was a cloud, in the 
singular, which covered the Israelites, and was a cloud of 
fire and not of water. But the Psalmist is again quoted : 
" The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the pres- 
ence of God : even Sinai itself was moved with the pres- 
ence of God, the God of Israel. Thou, O God, didst send 
a plentiful rain, whereby thou didst confirm thine inherit- 
ance." Psalm lxviii: 8, 9. Truly, this quotation speaks 
of rain, but it was that which fell on the Israelites when at 
the base of Sinai, and not when passing through the sea. 

If we would have David's description of their delivery 
and how they obtained water to drink, we have it briefly 
stated in the following words : " He divided the sea, and 
caused them to pass through : and he made the waters to 
stand as an heap : in the day-time also, he led them with 
a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire : he clave the 
rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the 
great depths ; he brought streams also out of the rock, and 
caused waters to run down like rivers." Ps. lxxviii: 13-16. 



BAPTISM OF SUFFERING. 353 

Thus we see that David confirms rather than conflicts 
with the statement of Paul and Moses. 

Moses Stuart says : " They went through the sea on 
dry ground. Yet they were baptized in the cloud and in 
the sea. The reason and ground of such an expression 
must be, so far as I can discern, a surrounding of the 
Israelites on different sides by the cloud and by the sea, 
although neither the cloud nor the sea touched them. It 
is, therefore, a kind of figurative mode of expression, de- 
rived from the idea that baptizing is surrounding with a 
fluid. But whether this be by immersion, affusion, suffu- 
sion, or washing, would not seem to be decided. The sug- 
gestion has sometimes been made that the Israelites were 
sprinkled by the cloud and by the sea, and this was the 
baptism which Paul meant to designate. But the cloud on 
this occasion was not a cloud of rain ; nor do we find any 
intimation that the waters of the Red Sea sprinkled the 
children of Israel at this time. So much is true, viz : that 
they were not immersed. Yet, as the language must evi- 
dently be figurative in some good degree, and not literal, 
I do not see how, on the whole, we can make less of it than 
to suppose that it has a tacit reference to the idea of 
surrounding in some way or other." Stuart on Baptism, 
p. 113. 

This is a candid admission from one writing confessedly 
in the interest of sprinkling and pouring. Indeed, it is just 
the truth. No one ever supposed that the Israelites were 
immersed or dipped, but they were surrounded by the cloud 
and sea, suggestive of Paul's idea that baptism is a burial. 

Baptism of Suffering. 

" But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye 
ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink 
of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized 

30 



354 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

with ? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith 
unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of rny cup, and be bap- 
tized with the baptism that I am baptized with." Matt, 
xx : 22, 23. 

" But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask : 
can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized 
with the baptism that I am baptized with ? And they said 
unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall 
indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the bap- 
tism that I am baptized with shall ye be baptized." Mark 
x:3§, 39- 

" But I have a baptism to be baptized with : and how 
am I straitened till it be accomplished !" Luke xii : 50. 

Upon these passages eminent critics have written as 
follows : 

Witsius : "Immersion into water is to be considered as 
exhibiting the dreadful abyss of divine justice, in which 
Christ for our sins was for a time, as it were, absorbed ; as 
in David, his type, he complains (Ps. lxix : 2), ' I am come 
into deep waters where tl*e floods overflow me.' " Bailey's 
Manual, p. 232. 

Doddridge's Family Expositor : "Are ye able to drink 
the bitter cup of which I am about to drink so deep, and 
be baptized with the baptism, and plunged into that sea 
of sufferings with which I am shortly to be baptized, and, 
as it were, overwhelmed for a time ? I have indeed a most 
dreadful baptism to be baptized with ; and I know that I 
shall shortly be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in 
the most overwhelming distress." 

Hervey : " He was baptized with the baptism of his 
sufferings, bathed in blood, and plunged in death." Bailey's 
Manual, p. 235. 

Sir H. Trelawney : " Here, I must acknowledge, our 
Baptist brethren have the advantage ; for our Redeemer's 



BAPTISM OF SUFFERING. 355 

sufferings must not be compared to a few drops of water 
sprinkled on the face, for he was plunged into distress and 
environed with sorrows." Ibid. 

Bloomfield's Greek Test. : " This metaphor of im- 
mersion in water, as expressive of being overwhelmed by 
affliction, is frequent, both in the Scriptures and in class- 
ical writers." Vol. i, p. 97. 

Wesley's Notes, p. 123: "Our Lord was filled with 
sufferings within, and covered with them without." 

Prof. Stuart : " I have a baptism to be baptized with — 
that is, I am about to be overwhelmed with sufferings, and 
I am greatly distressed with the prospect of them." 

" Can ye indeed take upon you to undergo, patiently and 
submissively, sufferings like, mine — sufferings of an over- 
whelming and dreadful nature ?" Stuart on Baptism, 
p. 72. 

The awful sufferings of Jesus may well be called a bap- 
tism, for truly he was overwhelmed in them. Will the 
reader follow Him to the garden of Gethsemane, and see 
Him, as it were, sweating great drops of blood, and say 
that such agony was in anticipation of a little sprinkle of 
suffering? Shall we enter the judgment hall of Pilate and 
see him clothed with a mock robe and crown of thorns, 
and still say this was a little sprinkle of insult mid injury ? 
Shall we stand upon the summit of Calvary and see the 
rusty nails sent hissing through His quivering flesh as 
He is made fast to the cross, and say this is yet only a 
sprinkle of suffering ? Shall we stand by the cross on 
which he is suspended for three long hours, suffering all 
the horrors of a malefactor's death, derided by enemies, 
forsaken by friends, and for a time even forsaken by His 
God, and still say this is all a mere sprinkle of sufferings ? 
Is not such a thought monstrously impious ? Yet it is in- 
volved in the idea that sprinkling or pouring is baptism. 



356 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

We will not dignify it by a further examination in connec- 
tion with the sufferings of our blessed Lord. 

Arguments for Sprinkling and Pouring Considered. 

" I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance : but 
he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt, iii : n. This was a 
prophetic declaration made by John the Baptist ; and before 
we proceed to look for its fulfillment it may be well for us 
to remark that the preposition with, which occurs three 
times in this passage, is from the Greek preposition en, 
the primary meaning of which is in, and should be so 
rendered here, unless good reasons, which we are not able 
to see, be shown for its removal. Thus translated, the 
passage reads : " I indeed baptize you in water * * * he 
shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire." On the 
day of Pentecost this remarkable prediction was fulfilled 
as to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, an account of which 
we have as follows : "And when the day of Pentecost was 
fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a 
rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they 
were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began 
to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them ut- 
terance." Acts ii : 1-4. As we have elsewhere remarked, 
there was here an absolute impact of the human spirit and 
the Holy Spirit. They being filled with the Spirit, it fol- 
lows that their spirits were overwhelmed or immersed in 
the Holy Spirit. 

But was this a baptism of the Holy Ghost ? On a sub- 
sequent occasion Peter said : "As I began to speak [at the 



SPRINKLING AND POURING CONSIDERED. 357 

house of Cornelius] the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us 
at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the 
Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with [in] 
water ; but ye shall be baptized with [in] the Holy Ghost." 
Acts xi : 15, 16. This shows that the baptism in the Holy 
Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and at the 
house of Cornelius. 

But we are told that, as the Spirit was poured out on 
the day of Pentecost, that the pouring was the baptism. 
If this is true, it was the Spirit that was poured, and con- 
sequently it was the Spirit that was baptized and not the 
people. 

That this is a figurative use of the term baptidzo is very 
generally admitted by the learned. In Dr. Robinson's 
Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 126, he says: 
" Metaphorically, and in direct allusion to the sacred rite, 
baptize en pneumati hagio kai puri — to baptize in the Holy 
Ghost and in fire, to overwhelm, richly furnish with all 
spiritual gifts, or overwhelm with fire unquenchable. Matt. 
iii : 11, etc." 

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, A. D. 350, says: "As he 
who is plunged in the water and baptized is encompassed 
by the water on every side, so they that are baptized by the 
Holy Spirit are also wholly covered over." Bailey's Man- 
ual, p. 222. Substantially the same, Stuart on Bap., p. 148, 

Prof. Stuart on Baptism, p. 74, says : " The basis of 
this usage is very plainly to be found in the designation 
by baptidzo of the idea of overwhelming — i. e., of sur- 
rounding on all sides with a fluid." 

Gurtlerus : " Baptism in the Holy Spirit is immersion 
into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit, or a rich and 
abundant communication of his gifts. For he on whom 
the Holy Spirit is poured out is, as it were, immersed 
unto him." Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 222. 



358 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Bishop Reynolds : " The Spirit, under the gospel, is 
compared to water, and that not a little measure, to 
sprinkle or bedew, but to baptize the faithful in (Matt, iii : 
1 1 ; Acts i : 5), and that not in a font or vessel, which grows 
less and less, but in a spring or living water." Ut supra. 

Ikenius : " The Greek word baptismos denotes the im- 
mersion of a thing or person into something. Here, also 
(Matt, iii: n, compared with Luke iii: 16), the baptism of 
fire, or that which is performed in fire, must signify, accord- 
ing to the same simplicity of the letter, an immission or 
immersion into fire — and this the rather, because here, to 
baptize in the Spirit arid in fire are not only connected but 
also opposed to being baptized in water." Ibid. 

Le Clerc : " He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. As 
I plunge you in water, he shall plunge you, so to speak, in 
the Holy Spirit." Ibid. 

Casaubon : " To baptize is to immerse — and in this 
sense the apostles are truly said to be baptized ; for the 
house in which this was done was filled with the Holy 
Ghost, so that the apostles seemed to be plunged into it 
as into a fish-pool." Ut supra. 

Grotius : " To be baptized here is not to be slightly 
sprinkled, but to have the Holy Spirit abundantly poured 
upon them." Ibid. 

Mr. Leigh : " Baptized — that is, drown you all over, dip 
you into the ocean of his grace ; opposite to the sprink- 
ling which was in the law." Ut supra. 

Arch'p Tillotson : " It (the sound from heaven, Acts 
2) filled all the house. This is that which our Saviour calls 
baptizing with the Holy Ghost. So that they who sat in 
the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost, 
as they who were buried with water were overwhelmed 
and covered all over with water, which is the proper notion 
of baptism." Ibid. 



BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR, 359 

Bishop Hopkins: "Those that are baptized with the 
Spirit are, as it were, plunged into that heavenly flame 
whose searching energy devours all their dross, tin, and 
base alloy." Ut supra. 

Mr. H. Dodwell : "The words of our Saviour were made 
good, Ye shall be baptized (plunged or covered) with the 
Holy Spirit, as John baptized with water without it." Ibid. 

Theophylact, commenting on the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, says: "That is, he shall inundate you abundantly 
with the gifts of the Spirit." Bailey's Manual, p. 223. 

These authors all concur in the fact that the word bap- 
tidzo, when applied to the Holy Spirit, indicates an over- 
whelming in Spirit, drawn from the result reached by the 
primary meaning of the word, hence the overwhelming was 
the baptism, and not the outpouring. And if the spiritual 
or inner man was baptized in the Holy Spirit, as they were 
all filled with the Holy Spirit, we may well see why this 
was called a baptism or overwhelming of the human spirit 
in the Holy Spirit. 

Baptism of the Altar. 

"And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in 
pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four bar- 
rels with water, and pour it on the burnt-sacrifice, and on 
the wood. And he said, Do it a second time. And they 
did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. 
And they did it the third time. And the water ran round 
about the altar ; and he filled the trench also with water." 
1 Kings xviii: 33-35. 

Origen, one of the most learned of the Greek fathers, 
was born A. D. 185, and probably wrote about the middle 
of the third century. He incidentally alludes to the bap- 
tism of the altar, wood, etc., by Elijah ; and as the water 
was poured on the altar, the opponents of immersion insist 



360 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

that the pouring was what Origen called the baptism. If 
so, we again insist that he made an improper use of the 
term baptidzo, his great learning to the contrary notwith- 
standing ; for, as the water was poured and not the altar 
or wood, it follows that the water was baptized upon the 
altar and the latter not baptized at all. Certainly, it was 
the complete saturation or overwhelming of the altar to 
which he alluded as a baptism, for he was, as before stated, 
one of the most learned of the Greeks, and as such knew 
well that baptidzo never meant to pour. What he un- 
derstood baptism to be may be learned from his own 
words, as follows : " They are rightly baptized who are 
washed unto salvation. He that is baptized unto salvation 
receives the water and the Holy Spirit ; such baptism as 
is accompanied with crucifying the flesh and rising again 
to newness of life is the approved baptism." Orchard's 
Hist., vol. i, p. 35. 

But if the pouring constituted the baptism to which 
Origen referred, there must have been as many baptisms 
as there were pourings, hence he could not have spoken 
of a baptism, for there were twelve barrels of water used, 
and each one would have constituted a pouring, therefore 
there must have been twelve baptisms. 

But we are told that there were no barrels in those days, 
and that Elijah only used twelve leathern bottles of water, 
a quantity wholly insufficient to have saturated or over- 
whelmed the altar. Such persons should take heed lest 
they deprive the prophet of the benefit of the trial between 
himself and the prophets of Baal, for the very object he 
had in applying the water was to so completely inundate 
the altar as to forbid the supposition or possibility of fire 
being concealed beneath it. 

We come next to an examination of the bathing of Ju- 
dith in or at the fountain in the valley of Bethulia. This 



APOCRYPHAL BAPTISMS. 36 1 

case, recorded in the apochryphal books of the Bible, is no 
part of the inspired volume, and therefore has no just 
claim to our consideration, but as the advocates of sprink- 
ling always introduce it, as drowning men catch at straws, 
we will therefore examine it. 

* Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they 
should not stay her : thus she abode in the camp three 
days, and went out in the night into the valley of Bethulia, 
and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp." 
Judith xii : 7, Some copies have at the fountain in place 
of in the fountain. Hence it is insisted that she sprinkled 
a little water upon herself as a mere ceremonial cleansing, 
but we have quoted the above from Bagster's large family 
edition, which is one of the most authentic copies known. 

Dr. Conant says : " One of the oldest Greek manu- 
scripts (No. 58), and the two oldest versions (the Syriac 
and Latin), read immersed (baptized) herself in the fount- 
ain of water (omitting in the camp). According to the 
common Greek text, this was done at the fountain to 
which she went, because she had there the means of im- 
mersing herself. Any other use of water for purification 
could have been made in her tent." Baptizien, p. 85. 

Surely, this is a rational conclusion. Why should she, 
like the Philippian jailer, have left her tent after midnight 
and gone out into the valley to sprinkle a few drops of wa- 
ter upon her person ? The fact that she did go at such an 
hour proves that she went in obedience to the Jewish law 
that required her to bathe her whole person. 

We have another case in the apocryphal writings sug- 
gested in the following words : " He that washeth himself 
after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, 
what availeth his washing?" Eccles. xxxiv : 25. 

We need not say to the Bible reader that any one who had 
touched a dead body was regarded as unclean, and that the 
V 



362 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

law required him to wash his clothes and bathe himself in 
water that he might be clean at even. See Numbers xix: 
19. Let it not be said that this bathing was a mere 
sprinkling, for they were required both to sprinkle and 
bathe, and both are specifically named in the same verse. 
Hence, ail that is meant by baptizing from a dead body is 
that they baptized from the ceremonial uncleanness con- 
tracted by contact with a dead body. A similar form of 
expression is found in Heb. x : 22, where we are said to be 
sprinkled from an evil conscience and the body washed in 
pure water. 

We next come to examine the baptism of cups, pots, 
brazen vessels, and tables, recorded Mark vii: 4, as follows : 
"And when they come from the market, except they wash, 
they eat not. And many other things there be which 
they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and 
pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." 

Although these washings had nothing to do with the 
baptism commanded by the Lord, yet, as the word wash 
is the translation of baptidzo, they are relied upon as ex- 
pressive of its meaning. By reference to the Jewish law 
it will be seen that the washings here referred to were 
more than mere sprinkling. In Lev. vi : 28, it is said : 
"The brazen pot shall be scoured and rinsed in water" — 
not a little water simply sprinkled upon it, but scoured and 
rinsed in zvater. As a brazen pot was one of the articles 
mentioned in Mark, it is fair to conclude that the other 
articles were cleansed as it was. 

But again, the law says : " Upon whatsoever any of them, 
when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean ; whether 
it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, 
whatsoever vessel it be wherein any work is done, it must 
be put into water ; and it shall be unclean until the even, 
so it shall be cleansed." Lev. xi : 32. This puts the whole 



BAPTISM OF BEDS, VESSELS, ETC. 363 

matter beyond the reach of cavil ; they were to be put into 
water, and any thing short of this would have been an in- 
sult to the Giver of the law. Hence, the word baptidzo in 
Mark vii : 4, should be rendered dip or immerse, according 
to its primary import ; and Macknight, in his Harmony of 
the Gospels, so renders it. 

Thomas Sheldon Green, of London, in an improved 
version of the Greek Text, has this verse and a trans- 
lation of it, by himself, as follows : "And coming from the 
market-place, they do not eat unless they dip themselves, 
and there are many other matters which they have received 
to hold, dipping of cups, and jars, and brazen vessels, and 
couches," etc. 

On this verse Beza remarks : " Christ commanded us to 
be baptized ; by which word it is certain immersion is sig- 
nified ; baptizesthai in this place is more than niptein, be- 
cause that seems to respect the whole body, this only the 
hands." 

" Dr. H. A. W. Meyer, in his Manual on the Gospels 
of Mark and Luke, says : ' The expression in Mark vii : 4, 
is not to be understood of the washing of the hands (as in- 
terpreted by Lightfoot and Wetstein), but of the immers- 
ing which the word always means in the classics and the 
New Testament ; that is here, according to the context, 
the taking of a bath. So Luke xi : 38. Having come 
from the market, where among a crowd of men, they might 
have come in contact with unclean persons, they eat not 
without having first bathed themselves. The representa- 
tion proceeds after the manner of a climax : before eating 
they always observe the washing of hands, but (employ) 
the bath when they come from the market and wish to 
take food.' " Louisville Debate, p. 563. 

" Vatabulus, professor of Hebrew in Paris, says of 
Mark vii : 4 : ' They washed themselves all over.' Gro- 



364 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tius, the great German writer, says : 'They cleansed 
themselves more carefully from defilement contracted at 
the market, to wit : not only by washing hands, but by 
immersing their bodies.' " Braden and Hughey Debate, 

P- 45- 

The Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts give us beds 
or couches in place of tables in the common version. 
Hence, it is insisted that baptism must have been a 
sprinkling, as beds could not have been immersed— basing 
their argument, of course, upon the assumption that beds 
then were such as are now used. They forget, however, 
that Jesus commanded persons to take up their beds and 
walk. See Matt, ix : 6 ; Mark ii : 9-1 1 ; John v : 11, 12. 

" Calmet says : 'The word bed is in many cases calcu- 
lated to mislead the reader and perplex him. The beds 
in the East are very different from those used in this part 
of the world. They were often nothing more than a cloth 
or quilt folded double.' " Braden and Hughey Debate, p. 46. 

Though not always so, it is evident that the beds of 
those times were often composed of a light fabric which 
could be conveniently spread down or taken up, folded 
and carried along at pleasure. 

Maimonides, a Jewish rabbi, learned in the ceremonial 
law and traditions of the elders, says : " Wherever, in the 
law, washing of the flesh or clothes is mentioned, it means 
nothing else than dipping the whole body in a laver ; for 
if a man dips himself all over except the tips of his little 
finger, he is still in his uncleanness. In a laver which 
held forty sacks (one hundred gallons) of water, every de- 
filed man dips himself, except a proflunious man, and in it 
they dip all unclean vessels. A bed that is wholly defiled, 
if he dip it part by part, is pure. If he dip the bed in a 
pool, although its feet are plunged in the thick clay of the 
bottom, it is clean." Ibid, p. 45. 



BAPTISM OF BEDS, VESSELS, ETC. 365 

Maimonides was one of the greatest lights in the Jewish 
church, and lived about the twelfth century, when the bap- 
tismal controversy was not so rife as now, and surely could 
have no motive to misrepresent the fact. 

But we are told that some versions have sprinkle in 
place of wash, in Mark vii : 4. This is true, but we deny 
that it is a translation of baptidzo, here or elsewhere. 

Schleusner says that some manuscripts have rantizonti 
in place of baptizonti, in Mark vii : 4'; hence any translator 
having such a manuscript before him must necessarily 
have sprinkle in his version. Although we thus account 
for the appearance of sprinkle in some versions, we have 
no idea that rantizonti is the correct word for the text, 
because we have seen that the washings referred to were 
immersions. 

One other text, we believe, exhausts the proof of those 
who practice sprinkling for baptism, and, like the one just 
considered, it has no allusion to baptism whatever. It is 
found in Luke xi : 38, as follows : 

"And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he 
had not first washed before dinner," etc. 

Green, of London, translates this verse thus : "And as 
he spake, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him, and he 
went in and lay down. But the Pharisee wondered that 
he had not dipped before dinner." Twofold New Testa- 
ment, p. 131. 

We have already seen that this rendering is in harmony 
with the Jewish law. When any one went out where he 
was liable to come in contact with such things as would 
render him unclean, he must bathe his flesh in water as 
though he were really unclean. Hence, this can not be 
taken as evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that 
the washing referred to was not an immersion. 

We have abundantly shown that baptidzo means to im- 



366 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

merse or dip ; hence, wherever it occurs we are bound to 
presume that the act indicated was dipping or immersing 
as long as there remains a possibility that this was the act 
performed. A mere possibility that it may have been done 
otherwise is not sufficient to overturn the settled meaning 
of the word. 

History of Baptism. 

We have now passed over and examined every scripture 
relied upon to prove sprinkling or pouring as baptism, and 
have not found a single passage where the word baptidzo 
occurs in the New Testament, where it may not justly be 
translated dip or immerse. And it is not a little remark- 
able that more importance is attached to the word in places 
where it has no reference to baptism, as commanded by the 
Lord, than in those places where He used it to express the 
act He required of His followers, or in places where any 
inspired apostle employed it with reference to the act 
enjoined by Him. Mark vii : 4, and Luke xi : 38, are 
regarded by them as of more importance than even the 
commission itself; and yet these passages have no refer- 
ence to Christian baptism. No scholar has ever been 
found willing to hazard his reputation by pointing out a 
single place in the New Testament where the word bap- 
tidzo refers to the rite in question, and saying that it means 
sprinkle or pour and should be so rendered in that place, 
or who has ever been able to point to a single clear exam- 
ple of sprinkling or pouring for baptism. 

We now pass to the history of baptism, and we will 
begin with the writings of those who lived contemporane- 
ously with the apostles, and see if we can learn how the 
primitive Christians obeyed the command of the Lord 
in baptism. 

Hermas lived in the days of the apostles and wrote be- 
fore John wrote his gospel. See Wall's History of Infant 



HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 367 

Baptism, vol. i, pp. 52-56. He says : " For before any one 
receives the name of the Son of God he is liable to death, 
but when he receives that seal he is delivered from death 
and is assigned to life. Now, that seal is water, into which 
persons go down liable to death, but come out of it assigned 
to life." Ut supra, p. 51. Here, we see, they went down 
into and came up out of the water. 

Barnabas was the companion of Paul. He says : " For 
these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their 
trust in the Cross, have gone down into the water * * * * 
This meaneth that we, indeed, descend into the water full 
of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our 
heart, having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our 
spirit." Apostolic Fathers, p. 121. 

Justin Martyr was a Christian, and put to death for 
his faith in Jesus Christ. He was born A. D. 114, and 
wrote about A. D. 150. He says: "Then we bring them 
to some place where there is water, and they are regen- 
erated by the same way of regeneration by which we were 
regenerated : for they are washed with water in the name 
of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our 
Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ 
says : Unless ye be regenerated, ye can not enter into the king- 
dom of heave ? 1." Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., p. 68. 

Why should they have been taken to a place where 
there was water, to be "regenerated" (or, more properly, 
born again) ? There is nothing in sprinkling or pouring 
resembling a birth or which could have created a necessity 
for going to a place where there was water in order to be 
born again. 

Mosheim, in speaking of the first century, says : " The 
sacrament of baptism was administered in this century 
without the public assemblies, in places appointed and pre- 
pared for that purpose, and was performed by an immer- 



368 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

sion of the whole body in the baptismal font" Machine's 
Mosheim's Church Hist., Vol. I, p. 49. 

Of the second century he says : " The persons that were 
to be baptized, after they had repeated the Creed, confessed 
and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his 
pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and 
received into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation of 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express 
command of our blessed Lord." Ibid, p. 69. This not 
only shows that the parties were immersed under water, 
but that it was done " according to the express command of 
our fylessed Lord." 

Of the fourth century the same author says: "Baptismal 
fonts were now erected in the porch of each church, for the 
more commodious administration of that initiating sacra- 
ment." Ibid> p. 121. We are not here told expressly how 
baptism was administered in the fourth century, but surely 
it would have been unnecessary to erect fonts in con- 
nection with churches in order to practice sprinkling or 
pouring. 

Mosheim is one of the most reliable ecclesiastical histo- 
rians we have, and practiced sprinkling and pouring him- 
self. It is not to be presumed, therefore, that he would 
misrepresent the facts of history in favor of immersion. 

Neander, another church historian, says : " In respect 
to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the orig- 
inal institution and the original import of the symbol, per- 
formed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the 
Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same. It 
was only the sick, where the exigency required it, that any 
exception was made, and in this case baptism was admin- 
istered by sprinkling. Many superstitious persons, cling- 
ing to the outward form, imagined that such baptism by 
sprinkling was not fully valid, and hence they distinguished 



HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 369 

those who had been so baptized by denominating them 
the clinici" Neander's Church History, by Torry, vol. i, 
p. 310. Neander is a voluminous and reliable author, and 
as the church of which he was a member practiced sprink- 
ling, it is reasonable to suppose that he did also, and most 
likely gave unwilling testimony to the facts of history 
against his own practice. 

Dr. Wall, the Pedobaptist historian, says : " Their gen- 
eral and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or 
dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown 
man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear 
by an infinite number of passages, that, as one can not but 
pity the weak endeavors of such pedobaptists as would 
maintain the negative of it, so also we ought to disown 
and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people 
give to the English anti-pedobaptists merely for their use 
of dipping. It is one thing to maintain that that circum- 
stance is not absolutely necessary to the essence of bap- 
tism, and another to go about to represent it as ridiculous 
and foolish, or as shameful and indecent, when it was, in 
all probability, the way by which our blessed Saviour, and 
for certain was the most usual and ordinary way by which 
the ancient Christians did receive their baptism. I shall 
not stay to produce the particular proofs of this. Many 
of the quotations which I brought for other purposes, and 
shall bring, do evince it. It is a great want of prudence as 
well as of honesty to refuse to grant to an adversary what 
is certainly true and may be proved so. It creates a jeal- 
ousy of all the rest that one says. 

" Before the Christian religion was so far encouraged as 
to have churches built for its service, they baptized in any 
river, pond, etc. So Tertullian says : * It is all one whether 
one be washed in the sea or in a pond, in a fountain or in 
a river, in standing or in running water ; nor is there 



370 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

any difference between those that John baptized in Jordan 
and those that Peter baptized in the river Tiber.' But 
when they came to have churches, one part of the church, 
or place nigh the church, called the baptistery, was em- 
ployed to this use, and had a cistern, font, or pond large 
enough for several at once to go into the water ; divided 
into two parts by a partition, one for the men and the 
other for the women, for the ordinary baptisms." Wall's 
Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. ii, pp. 384, 385. 

As Wall here refers to examples previously given as evi- 
dence of the correctness of his conclusions, it may not be 
amiss to give the reader the benefit of a few of them re- 
corded in the first volume of his work. 

On the language of Justin Martyr, which we have already 
quoted, he remarks as follows : " I bring it because it is 
the most ancient account of the way of baptizing, next the 
Scripture, and shows the plain and simple manner of ad- 
ministering it. The Christians of these times had lived, 
many of them at least, in the apostles' days." Vol. i, p. 69. 

Clement, of Alexandria, says : " If any one be by trade 
a fisherman, he will do well to think of an apostle and the 
children taken out of the water." Again, the same author 
says : " If there be engraved in a seal ring the picture of a 
fisherman [or rather, as Clement's own words are, if a fish- 
erman will have an engraving on his seal], let him think 
of St. Peter, whom Christ made a fisher of men ; and of 
the children, which, when baptized, are drawn out of a 
laver of water as out of a fish-pool." Ibid, p. 86. These 
quotations from Clement show that after the introduction 
of infant baptism, even they were immersed, being drawn 
out of a laver of water as out of a fish-pool. 

There was rather a novel question mooted before the 
Council of Neocassarea, in the year 314 A. D., with regard 
to which Dr. Wall remarks as follows : " So much is plain, 



HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 371 

that some about that time and place had put this question: 
Whether a woman with child, that had a mind to become 
a Christian and be baptized, might conveniently receive 
baptism during her going with child, or must stay till 
she was delivered ? And it is agreed likewise that the 
reason of the doubt was, because when she was immersed 
into the water, the child in her womb did seem to some to 
be baptized with her, and consequently they were apt to 
argue that that child must not be baptized, or would not 
need to be baptized, afterward for itself. This any one will 
conclude from the words of the council, which are these." 
(Here follow the words of the council.) Ibid, vol. i, p. 151. 
It strikes us that such a question would never have arisen 
with reference to the offspring of a mother who had had 
only a few drops of water sprinkled upon her head. Other 
examples might be cited, but these are sufficient to justify 
Wall in the conclusion to which he came. 

Prof. Stuart says : " Tertullian, who died in A. D. 220, 
is the most ample witness of all the early writers. In his 
works is an essay in defense of Christian baptism, which 
had been assailed by some of the heretics of his time. 
Passing by the multitude of expressions which speak of the 
importance of being cleansed by water, being born in the 
water, etc., I quote only such as are directly to the point." 
He then proceeds to quote Tertullian as follows: "In 
aquam de missus, let down into the water — i. e. y immersed — 
and inter pauca verba tinctns — i. e. y dipped between the 
utterance of a few words. * * *' There is, then, no differ- 
ence whether any one is washed in a pool, river, fountain, 
lake, or channel, alveus (canal), nor is there any difference 
of consequence between those whom John immersed 
(tinxit) in the Jordan or Peter in the Tiber. * * * Not that 
we obtain the Holy Spirit in aquis [i. e., in the baptismal 
water], but being cleansed in the water we are prepared for 



372 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the Holy Spirit. * * * Afterwards, going out from the ablu- 
tion or bath, we are anointed. * * * Thence we'are thrice 
immersed (ter mergitamur) , answering, i, e., fulfilling some- 
what more than the Lord has decreed in the gospel." On 
these quotations from Tertullian Prof. Stuart remarks : " I 
do not see how any doubt can well remain, that in Tertul- 
lian's time the practice of the African church, to say the 
least, as to the mode of baptism, must have been that of 
trine immersion!' Stuart on Bap., pp. 144-46. 

" But enough. ' It is,' says Augusti, 'a thing made out/ 
viz., the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the 
writers who had thoroughly investigated this subject con- 
clude. I know of no one usage of ancient times which 
seems to be more clearly made out. I can not see how it 
is possible for any candid man who examines the subject 
to deny this." Ibid, p. 149. On page 152, Prof. Stuart 
quotes Augusti further : " Thirteen hundred years was 
baptism generally and ordinarily performed by the immer- 
sion of a man under water, and only in extraordinary cases 
was sprinkling or affusion permitted. These latter meth- 
ods of baptism were called in question and even pro- 
hibited." 

After quoting Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril, and Brenner, 
to show that in their times persons were baptized in a 
nude state, Prof. Stuart says : " Still, say what we may 
concerning it in a moral point of view, the argument to be 
deduced from it in respect to immersion is not at all dimin- 
ished. Nay, it is strengthened. For if such a violation 
of decency was submitted to in order that baptism might 
be performed as the church thought it should be, it argues 
that baptizing by immersion was considered as a rite not 
to be dispensed with." Ibid, p. 151. 

After quite an array of testimony concerning the ancient 
practice, Prof. Stuart gives his conclusions in the following 



HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 373 

words : " We have collected facts enough to authorize us 
now to come to the following general conclusion, respect- 
ing the practice of the Christian church in general, with 
regard to the mode of baptism, viz : that from the earliest 
ages of which we have any account, subsequent to the 
apostolic age, and downward for several centuries, the 
churches did generally practice baptism by immersion, 
perhaps by immersion of tlie whole person ; and that the 
only exceptions to this mode which were usually allowed 
were in cases of urgent sickness or other cases of imme- 
diate and imminent danger, where immersion could not be 
practiced. It may also be mentioned here, that aspersion 
and affusion, which had in particular cases been now and 
then practiced in primitive times, were gradually intro- 
duced. These became at length, as we shall see hereafter, 
quite common, and in the western church almost universal, 
sometime before the Reformation. 

In what manner, then, did the churches of Christ, from 
a very early period, to say the least, understand the word 
baptidzo in the New Testament ? Plainly, they construed 
it as meaning immersion. They sometimes even went so 
far as to forbid any other method of administering the 
ordinance, cases of necessity and mercy only excepted. If, 
then, we are left in doubt after a philological investigation 
of baptidzo, how much it necessarily implies ; if the cir- 
cumstances which are related as accompanying this rite, 
so far as the New Testament has given them, leave us 
still in doubt ; if we can not trace with any certainty the 
Jewish proselyte baptism to a period as early as the bap- 
tism of John and Jesus, so as to draw any inferences with 
probability from this, still we are left in no doubt as to the 
more generally received usage of the Christian church 
down to a period several centuries after the apostolic age. 
That the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were 



374 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

familiar with the Greek, understood the usual import of the 
word baptidzo, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial. 
That they might be confirmed in their view of the import 
of this word by common usage among the Greek classic 
authors, we have seen in the first part of this dissertation. 
For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptidzo in the 
New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does 
in all probability involve the idea that this rite was usually 
performed by immersion,*but not always." Ibid, p. 153, 154. 

Is it not strange that such a termination should follow 
such testimony and admissions ? After telling us that 
bapto and baptidzo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into 
any thing liquid, and that all lexicographers of any note 
are agreed in this — that the churches of Christ, from a 
very early period, to say the least, understood the word 
baptidzo to mean immersion in the New Testament — that it 
could not be denied that those who so used it understood 
its import — that aspersion and affusion were gradually in- 
troduced — that he cheerfully admitted that baptidzo in the 
New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, in all 
probability involved the idea of immersion, he then closes 
with " not always." And he repeats, with emphasis, " I 
say usually and not always." And what are the examples 
to which he refers as exceptions ? The reader shall have 
the benefit of them. He says : " To say more than this, 
the tenor of some of the narrations, particularly in Acts x : 
47, 48 ; xvi : 32, 33, and ii : 41, seem to me to forbid. I 
can not read these examples without the distinct convic- 
tion that immersion was not practiced on these occa- 
sions." P. 154. 

Now, we confess ourself wholly unable to see any thing 
in these examples calculated to overturn the settled mean- 
ing of the word used to indicate the act required, and the 
construction placed upon it in the New Testament by the 



HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 375 

primitive Christians acknowledged competent to under- 
stand it, and the practice of the church from an early period 
in harmony with these authorities. May we briefly exam- 
ine the exceptional cases to which he refers us ? Acts x : 47, 
48, reads as follows : " Can any man forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost 
as well as we ? And he commanded them to be baptized in 
the name of the Lord?' On this passage Prof. Stuart says : 
"Observe that the idea in this case seems almost of neces- 
sity to be : Can any one forbid that water should be brought 
in, and these persons baptized? He does not say: Can 
any one forbid the bath, or the river — i. e., the use of these, 
by which these persons should be baptized ; but the inti- 
mation seems to be that they were to be baptized on the 
spot, and that water was to be brought in for that pur- 
pose." Stuart on Bap., p. no. 

Now, is it not strange that persons can see what is not 
said on one side and be blind as to what is not said on the 
other? He says : " He does not say : Can any one forbid 
the bath or the river ?" No ; nor does he say : Can any 
man forbid that water should be brought in, and yet he 
can easily infer it. Candor compels him to admit "that 
another meaning is not necessarily excluded which would 
accord with the practice of immersion." In view of the 
admissions of Prof. Stuart, as long as there remains a pos- 
sibility that the command was obeyed as commanded, we 
have no right to infer that something else was done not 
indicated by the command. 

The second example to which he refers, in Acts xvi : 34, 
we have already examined, and we have seen that, accord- 
ing to rules of interpretation given by Prof. Stuart himself, 
we are bound to presume that the jailer was immersed. 
We refer the reader to the argument there presented with- 
out repeating it here. His third example claims a brief 



376 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

notice at our hands. The passage reads: "They that 
gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day 
there were added unto them about three thousand souls." 
Acts ii : 41. On this passage Prof. Stuart asks : "Where 
and how were they baptized ? Was it in the brooks or 
streams near Jerusalem ? I can not find this to be prob- 
able. The feast of Pentecost, being fifty days after the 
Passover (Lev. xxv : 15), must fall i#the latter part of the 
month of May, and after the Jewish harvest. In Palestine 
this is usually a time of drought, or at least of great scar- 
city of rain." Ibid, p. 108. How easy it is to imagine a 
thing just as we would have it to be ! Prof. Stuart was 
anxious to find some testimony favoring baptism by asper- 
sion or affusion, and hence he imagines that the Jewish 
harvest was at a time of great scarcity of water in Jerusa- 
lem, and therefore those baptized could not have been im- 
mersed. Joshua says: "Jordan overfloweth all his banks 
all the time of harvest." Josh, iii : 15. Jordan was one 
of the chief rivers of that country, and is only eighteen 
miles from the city of Jerusalem by the ordinary road of 
travel. At a time when Jordan was overflowing his banks 
we can not easily imagine a great drought in Palestine. 
Josephus informs us that no less than two million seven hun- 
dred thousand two hundred persons assembled in Jerusalem 
to eat the feast of the annual passover. (Wars of the Jews, 
book vi, ch. 9). Xow, it occurs to us that a city which had 
water facilities for the accommodation of such a number 
of persons could furnish water enough to baptize them all 
in if necessary. " There were in Jerusalem the following 
pools : Bethesda, twenty-two rods long and eight rods wide ; 
Solomon's pool, fifteen rods long and six rods wide ; the 
pool of Siloam, fifty-three feet long and eighteen feet wide, 
with a smaller pool ; Old pool, twenty rods long and thir- 
teen rods wide ; pool of Hezekiah, fifteen rods long and 



HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 377 

nine rods wide ; lower pool of Gihon, thirty-six rods long 
and sixteen rods wide, now, in the days of the apostles it 
covered over four acres." Braden and Hughey Debate, 
p. 129. Here were acres upon acres of water, besides nu- 
merous other sources of water of which we have no names, 
and yet not water enough in which to immerse three thou- 
sand ! ! But Prof. Stuart admits that they might have 
been immersed even in baths or washing places. He says : 
" I do not say that this was impossible, for every one ac- 
quainted with the Jewish rites must know that they made 
much use of ablutions, and therefore they would provide 
many conveniences for them." Stuart on Bap., p. 109. 

But we are told that the water was controlled by the en- 
emies of the disciples, and hence they would have objected 
to their using it for such purpose. But Luke says they had 
" favor with all the people." Acts ii : 47. Why should a 
people with whom God had given them favor forbid the 
use of the public watering-places for the immersion of 
those converted by their preaching ? 

After making an argument based upon the supposition 
that there was not time enough for the apostles to have 
baptized so many, Prof. Stuart says : " However, I concede 
that there are some points here which are left undeter- 
mined, and which may serve to aid those who differ from 
me in replying to these remarks. It is true that we do not 
know that baptism was performed by the apostles only, 
nor that all the three thousand were baptized before the 
going down of the sun. The work may have extended 
into the evening, and so, many being engaged in it, and 
more time being given, there was a possibility that the 
work in question should be performed although immersion 
was practiced." Stuart on Bap., pp. 109, no. Here he 
so completely meets his own argument that we feel dis- 
posed to dismiss it just where he left it — only asking the 
32 



3/8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

candid reader whether or not these three examples to 
which Prof. Stuart refers us are sufficient to overturn the 
evidence furnished by himself in favor of immersion ? 
How are we to know what the Lord requires of us in any 
matter only as we learn it from the words employed by 
Him to express His will? We have seen a rule for the 
use of words given by Prof. Stuart himself, which says : 
" To every word in Scripture there is unquestionably as- 
signed some idea or notion, otherwise words are useless 
and have no more signification than the inarticulate 
sounds of animals." Ernesti, p. 7. This being so, when 
the Lord used the word baptidzo there was unquestion- 
ably assigned to it some idea or notion — what was it? 
Prof. Stuart says : " Bapto and baptidzo mean to dip, plunge, 
or immerge into any thing liquid. All lexicographers and 
critics of any note are agreed in this." Stuart on Bap- 
tism, p. 51. 

He gives us numerous examples from the classics, show- 
ing that this statement is true as far as they are authority. 
Then he quotes largely from the primitive fathers, show- 
ing that they so understood the word baptidzo in the 
New Testament, and admits that they did understand its 
import. Finally, he shows by undoubted historical testi- 
mony that the church practiced immersion only as bap- 
tism, from its organization on, for many centuries; then 
seeks to overturn it all by referring us to three cases in 
the New Testament which seem to teach otherwise ; and 
yet, when he comes to examine them, his candor compels 
him to admit that they are not conclusive, and that even 
these may have been immersed. It is but just to Prof. 
Stuart to say that there is no higher authority in all the 
ranks of orthodoxy than he ; yet with all his learning he 
was compelled to bring to the support of sprinkling and 
pouring mere possibilities, which he seeks to make proba- 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING. 379 

bilities by ridiculous quibbles unworthy of notice but for 
the fact that they emanate from a man whose fame, though 
starting at Andover, is not confined to America. 

History of Sprinkling. 

Having seen that primitive Christians practiced immer- 
sion only as baptism, we come now to inquire for the origin 
of sprinkling and pouring. The first case known to us is 
that of Novatian, in the year 251 A. D., an allusion to 
which we have, given by Wall, as follows : 

" Novatian was by one party of the clergy and people of 
Rome chosen bishop of that church, in a schismatical way, 
and in opposition to Cornelius, who had been chosen by 
the major part and was already ordained. Cornelius does, 
in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, vindicate his 
right, and shows that Novatian came not canonically to 
his orders of priesthood ; much less was he capable of 
being chosen bishop ; for that all the clergy and a great 
many of the laity were against his being ordained pres- 
byter, because it was not lawful (they said) for any one 
that had been baptized in his bed in time of sickness, as 
he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy." 
Wall, Inf. Bap., vol. ii, pp. 385, 386. 

Mosheim, in his Historical Commentaries, p. 62, vol. i, 
gives us the history of the baptism of Novatian. He says : 
" He was seized with a threatening disease and was bap- 
tized in his bed, when apparently about to die." He recov- 
ered from his sickness and was subsequently made a pres- 
byter in the church by Bishop Fabian, contrary to the 
whole body of priests and of a large part of the church. 
The author says : " It was altogether irregular and con- 
trary to ecclesiastical rules, to admit a man to the priestly 
office who had been baptized in bed — that is, who had 
been merely sprinkled, and had not been wholly immersed 



38O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

in water, in the ancient method. For by many, and espe- 
cially the Roman Christians, the baptism of clinici (so they 
called those who, lest they should die out of the church, 
were baptized on a sick bed) was accounted less perfect, 
and indeed less valid, and not sufficient for the attainment 
of salvation." Louisville Debate, pp. 439, 440. 

The reader will please observe that the objection made 
to the ordination of Novatian was that he had been merely 
sprinkled (in the language of the author), and not wholly 
immersed in water, in the ancient method, thus showing 
clearly that immersion was the ancient method. From 
this time sprinkling and pouring as baptism seems to have 
been practiced, but only upon persons dangerously ill. 
Much discussion of its validity ensued, until about eighty 
years afterward the question was laid before the Neocae- 
sarean Council, the twelfth canon of which is : M He that 
is baptized when he is sick ought not to be made a priest 
(for his coming to the faith is not voluntary, but from 
necessity), unless his diligence and faith do afterward prove 
commendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the office re- 
quires it." Wall's Hist, vol. ii, pp. 386, 387. 

On the validity of this baptism Bishop Cyprian remarks : 
" The breast of the believer is washed, the soul of the man 
is cleansed by the merits of faith. In the sacraments of 
salvation, where necessity compels and God gives his per- 
mission, the divine thing, though outwardly abridged, be- 
stows all that it implies on the faithful." Neander's Church 
History, vol. i, p. 310. 

Observe here, that while Cyprian held that clinic bap- 
tism secured the blessings implied in the rite, he acknowl- 
edges it to be an outward abridgment of the divine thi7ig. 
Who has a right to abridge divine things ? 

" The first general law for sprinkling was obtained in 
the following manner : Pope Stephen II, being driven from 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING. 38 1 

Rome by Adolphus, king of the Lombards, in 753, fled to 
Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown of 
France. Whilst he remained there, the monks of Cressy, 
in Brittany, consulted him whether, in case of necessity, 
baptism poured on the head of the infant would be lawful. 
Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of 
this fact be allowed — which, however, some Catholics 
deny — yet pouring or sprinkling was admitted only in 
cases of necessity. It was not till the year 131 1 that the 
legislature, in a council held in Ravenna, declared immer- 
sion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In Scotland, however, 
sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases, till after 
the Reformation (about the middle of the sixteenth cen- 
tury). From Scotland it made its way into England, in 
the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the 
Established Church." Edinburgh Encyclopedia, article 
Baptism. 

It has been insisted that sprinkling or pouring was 
first practiced in cold countries, but Dr. Wall says : " By 
history it appears that the cold climate held the custom of 
dipping as long as any ; for England, which is one of the 
coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this alteration 
of the ordinary way. Vasquez having said that it was the 
old custom both in the East and the West to baptize both- 
grown persons and infants that were in health by immer- 
sion, and that it plainly appears by the words of St. Greg- 
ory that the custom continued so to be in his time. * * * 
I will here endeavor to trace the times when it begun to 
be left off in the several countries in the West, meaning 
still, in the case of infants that were in health, and in the 
public baptism ; for in the case of sickly or weak infants, 
there was always, in all countries, an allowance of affusion 
or sprinkling, to be given in haste, and in the house, or 
any other place. 



382 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

" France seems to have been the first country in the 
world where baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to 
persons in health, and in the public way of administer- 
ing it. * * * 

" It came more and more into request in that country 
till, in Bonaventure's time, it was become, as appears by 
his words last quoted, as very ordinary practice ; and 
though he says some other churches did then so use it, 
yet he names none but France. 

"The synod of Angiers, 1275, speaks of dipping or pour- 
ing as indifferently used, and blames some ignorant priests 
for that they dip or pour the water but once, and instructs 
them that the general custom of the church is to dip 
thrice or pour on water three times. * * * From France 
it spread (but not till a good while after) into Italy, Ger- 
many, Spain, etc., and, last of all, into England. * * * In 
England there seem to have been some priests so early as 
the year 816 that attempted to bring in the use of baptism 
by affusion in the public administration, for Spellman re- 
cites a canon of a council in that year : ' Let the priests 
know that when they administer holy baptism they must 
not pour the water on the head of the infants, but they 
must always be dipped in the font.' " Wall's Hist., vol. ii, 

PP- 392-396. 

On page 397, Dr. Wall quotes Wickliffe thus : "And the 
church has ordained that in case of necessity any person 
that is fidel [or that is himself baptized] may give baptism, 
etc. Nor is it material whether they be dipped," etc. 

By this quotation from Wickliffe it will be seen that the 
chunk ordained the departure from the ancient custom by 
making it immaterial whether the subject was dipped, etc. 

On page 398, Dr. Wall says : " From the time of King 
Edward, Mr. Walker (who has taken the most pains in 
tracing this matter) derives the beginning of the alteration 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING, ETC. 383 

of the general custom. He says that 'dipping was at this 
time the more usual, but sprinkling was sometimes used, 
which, within the time of half a century [meaning from 
1550 to 1600], prevailed to be the more general (as it is 
now almost the only) way of baptizing.' " 

We call the reader's special attention to the beginning 
of the alteration of the general custom. We might quote 
numerous other extracts from Dr. Wall, showing that the 
primitive practice was dipping or immersion, and that the 
church through her councils, popes, and bishops has as- 
sumed the right to change it, but the amount of testimony 
we wish to present from other sources forbids further quo- 
tations from him. 

Dr. Kendrick, Archbishop of the Catholic Church in 
Baltimore, says: "When religion had consummated her 
triumphs over paganism in the various countries of Eu- 
rope, the custom of Christians baptizing children being 
universal, ages passed away almost without an instance of 
the baptism of adults. Hence the necessity of receding 
from the mode of immersion became still more frequent, 
since the tender infant oftentimes could not be immersed 
without peril to its life. The cases thus multiplying, the 
more solemn method fell gradually into disuse, until it was 
in most places entirely superseded. 

" Another cause contributed to favor affusion : A class 
of females formerly existed in the church, under the name 
of deaconesses, who, among other exercises of piety, in- 
structed and prepared for baptism the catechumens of their 
sex, and performed some of the ceremonies preparatory to 
its administration. This class of females having ceased, 
from a variety of causes, it became expedient to abstain 
from the immersion of females." Kendrick on Baptism, 

PP- l 72, 173- 

And on page 174 he says : 



384 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

" The change of discipline which has taken place in re- 
gard to baptism should not surprise us ; for, although the 
church is but the dispenser of the sacraments which her 
divine spouse instituted, she rightfully exercises a discre- 
tionary power as to the manner of their administration. 
She can not change their substance." 

Again, on same page: "The church wisely sanctioned 
that which, although less solemn, is equally effectual. The 
power of binding and loosing which she received from 
Christ warrants this exercise of governing wisdom, that, the 
difference of times and places being considered, condensa- 
tion may be used with regard to the mode of administering 
the sacraments without danger to their integrity." 

Dr. Johnson said : "As to giving the bread to the laity, 
they may think that, in what is merely ritual, deviations 
from the primitive mode may be admitted on the ground 
of convenience ; and I think they are as well warranted to 
make this alteration as we are to substitute sprinkling in 
the room of ancient baptism." Campbell, Debate with 
Rice, p. 173. 

Mr. Bonner says : " Baptism by immersion was un- 
doubtedly the apostolic practice, and was never dispensed 
with by the church, except in cases of sickness, or when a 
sufficient quantity of water could not be had. In both 
these cases baptism by aspersion or sprinkling was allowed, 
but in no other." Booth on Baptism, p. 176. 

Chamierus: "Immersion of the whole body was used 
from the beginning, which expresses the force of the word 
baptizo : whence John baptized in the river. It was after- 
ward changed into sprinkling, though it is uncertain when 
or by whom it commenced." Ibid, p. 192. 

Bishop Stillingfleet's Rites and Customs of the 
English Church : " Rites and customs apostolical are 
altered ; therefore men do not think that apostolical prac- 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING, ETC. 385 

tice doth bind, for if it did,' there could be no alteration 
of things agreeable thereunto. Now, let any one consider 
but these few particulars, and judge how far the pleaders 
for a divine right of apostolical practice do look upon 
themselves as bound now to observe them." Ut supra. 

Deylingius : " It is manifest, that while the apostles 
lived the ordinance of baptism was administered, not out 
of a vessel or a baptistery, which are the marks of later 
times, but out of rivers and pools, and that not by sprink- 
ling but by immersion. * * * So long as the apostles lived, 
as many believe, immersion only was used, to which after- 
ward, perhaps, they added a kind of pouring." Ibid, p. 194. 

Heideggerus : " Plunging or immersion was most com- 
monly used by John the Baptist and by the apostles. * * * 
It is of no. importance whether baptism be performed by 
immersion into water, as of old, in the warm Eastern coun- 
tries, and even at this day, or by sprinkling, which was 
afterward introduced in colder climates." Ut supra. 

Edward Leigh : " The ceremony used in baptism is 
either dipping or sprinkling ; dipping is the more ancient. 
At first they went down into the rivers ; afterward they 
were dipped in fonts. * * * Zanchius and Mr. Perkins prefer 
(in persons of age, and in hot countries, where it may be 
safe) the ceremony of immersion under water, as holding 
more analogy to that of Paul (Rom. vi : 4)." Ut supra. 

Hornbekius: "In the Eastern churches baptism was 
more anciently administered by immersing the whole body 
in water. Afterward, first in the Western churches, on 
account of the coldness of the countries, bathing being 
less in use than in the East, and the tender age of those 
that were baptized, dipping or sprinkling was admitted." 
Booth, Abridged, pp. 100, 10 1. 

Grotius : " The custom of pouring or sprinkling seems 
to have prevailed in favor of those that were dangerously 
33 



386 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ill, and were desirous of giving up themselves to Christ — 
whom others call clinics. See the Epistle of Cyprian to 
Magnus." Ibid, p. 101. 

E. Spanhemius : " In these northern and colder coun- 
tries, out of regard to the tender age of infants, we use 
aspersion in the place of immersion, which, of old, was 
usually practiced, either in open rivers or in private bap- 
tisteries and vessels filled with water." Ut supra. 

Bishop Burnet : " The danger of dipping, in cold cli- 
mateS) may be a very good reason for changing the form 
of baptism to sprinkling." Ut supra. 

Dr. Towerson : " The first mention we find of asper- 
sion in the baptism of the elder sort was in the case of the 
clinici, or men who received baptism upon their sick beds ; 
and that baptism is represented by St. Cyprian as legiti- 
mate, upon the account of necessity that compelled it, and 
the presumption there was of God's gracious acceptation 
thereof because of it. By which means the lawfulness of 
any other baptism than by immersion will be found to be 
in the necessity there may sometimes be of another manner 
of administering it." Ibid, pp. 101, 102. 

Sir John Floyer : " The Church of Rome hath drawn 
short compendiums of both sacraments. In the eucharist 
they use only the wafer, and instead of immersion they 
introduced aspersion." Ibid, p. 102. 

Schleusner, in defining baptisma, says : " Properly, 
immersion, clipping into water, a washing ; hence, it is 
transferred to the sacred rite which, par excellence, is 
called baptism, in which formerly those to be baptized 
were plunged into water." New Testament Lexicon. 

Stokius, in defining baptisma, says : " Specifically, prop- 
erly it denotes the immersion or dipping of a thing into 
water that it may be cleansed or washed ; hence it is 
transferred to designating the first sacrament of the New 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING, ETC. 387 

Testament, which they call the sacrament of initiation — 
namely, baptism, in which those to be baptized were for- 
merly immersed into water, though at this day the water 
is only sprinkled upon them." New Testament Lexicon. 
Formerly they were immersed, now they have water only 
sprinkled on them. How came the change ? 

Dr. R. Witham : " The word baptism signifies a wash- 
ing, particularly when it is done by immersion, or by dip- 
ping, or plunging a thing under water, which was formerly 
the ordinary way of administering the sacrament of bap- 
tism. But the church, which can not change the least 
article of the Christian faith, is not so tied up in matters of 
discipline and ceremonies. Not only the Catholic Church, 
but also the pretended reformed churches, have altered 
this primitive custom in giving the sacrament of baptism, 
and now allow of baptism by pouring or sprinkling water 
07i the person baptized'' Booth, Abridged, pp. 102, 103. 

Moses Stuart : " It will be seen from all this, that 
Christians began somewhat early to deflect from the an- 
cient practice of immersion. " Stuart on Chr. Bap., p. 175. 

In debate with J. S. Sweeney, Dr. J. B. Logan, an emi- 
nent Cumberland Presbyterian debater, said : " The church 
claimed the right to change the mode but not the ordinance 
itself, and in that I agree with the church and can cheer- 
fully admit it." Sweeney and Logan Debate, p. 72. 

We have already quoted from Prof. Stewart " that asper- 
sion and affusion, which had now and then been practiced 
in particular cases in primitive times, were gradually in- 
troduced." The fact that they were gradually introduced 
shows that they came not from the Lord. He says that 
these became at length quite common in the Western 
church, but "the mode of baptism by immersion the Ori- 
ental church has always continued to preserve, even down 
to the present time." Stuart on Bap., p. 151. 



388 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Deylingius says : " The Greeks retain the rite of im- 
mersion to this day, as Jeremiah, the Patriarch of Con- 
stantinople, declares." Booth on Baptism, Abridged, 

P- 93- 

Buddeus : " That the Greeks defend immersion is man- 
ifest, and has been frequently observed by learned men, 
which Ludolphus informs us is the practice of the Ethi- 
opians." Ut supra. 

Venema : " In pronouncing the baptismal form of words, 
the Greeks used the third person, saying, 'Let the servant 
of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,' and immerse the whole 
man in water." Ut supra. 

Other authorities might be given, but these are deemed 
sufficient to show that, while the Western or Roman Cath- 
olic Church gradually introduced the practice of aspersion 
and affusion until they became common by the time of the 
Reformation, the Oriental or Greek Church has continued 
faithful to the commands of the Lord, and still practices 
only immersion as baptism. As the Greeks are presumed 
to better understand the Greek language than others un- 
accustomed to speak it, the fact that they have always un- 
derstood baptidzo to mean immersion, and have practiced 
accordingly, is an item of no small importance in arriving 
at a knowledge of what the Lord required as baptism. If 
any people may be presumed to know the import of the 
word used by the Lord it is certainly those by whom the 
Greek language has been always spoken. If they have not 
understood their native tongue, who has understood it ? 

Prof. Stuart quotes Calvin, thus : " It is of no conse- 
quence at all whether the person baptized is totally im- 
mersed, or whether he is merely sprinkled by an affusion 
of water. This should be a matter of choice to the 
churches in different regious, although the word baptize 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING, ETC. 389 

signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was prac- 
ticed by the ancient church ;" and then says : " To this 
opinion I do most fully and heartily subscribe." Stuart on 
Bap., pp. 156, 157. 

Thus we see that, after conceding immersion to be the 
meaning of the word used, by the Lord to indicate His 
will, and that immersion was the practice of the ancient 
church, these two great lights in the ranks of orthodoxy 
think it a matter of indifference, and should be left to 
the choice of the church ; hence, the church may decide 
whether the people shall obey the Lord or not. Kind 
reader, which will you obey ? " If the Lord be God, serve 
him ; if Baal, serve him." 

But what are the reasons given by Prof. Stuart for the 
conclusion to which he comes ? " i. The rite in question 
is merely external." Suppose it is, is that any reason why 
it should not be obeyed ? Jewish circumcision was " out- 
ward in the flesh" (Rom. ii : 28), yet God said: "The un- 
circumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not 
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he 
hath broken my covenant." Gen. xvii : 14. Does any one 
believe that God would have excused a Jew from circum- 
cision or have justified him in changing the act to some- 
thing else upon the ground that the rite was merely exter- 
nal? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken 
than the fat of rams. 

Prof. Stuart argues the right of the church to change 
the act of baptism at great length with all the plausibility 
of an ingenious sophist, but we have room only for a few 
short extracts, which we give as follow : " Must I show 
that we are not at liberty, without being justly exposed to 
the accusation of gross departure from Christianity, to de- 
part from the modes and forms of the apostolic church in 
any respect ? I have shown that all the churches on earth 



390 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

do depart from these, in their celebration of the Lord's 
Supper, and yet without any apprehension of being guilty 
of an impropriety, much less of being justly chargeable 
with the spirit of disobedience and revolt. * * * But what 
is the case in respect to baptism ? Will nothing but the 
letter do here ? So you may think and reason, but are 
you not entirely inconsistent with yourself? * * * Mere 
externals must be things of particular time and place. 
Dress does not make the man. One dress may be more 
convenient or more decorous than another, but neither the 
one nor the other is an essential part of the person. So 
the common feeling of men has decided about most of the 
external matters pertaining to religion the world over. 
They have always been modified by time and place, by 
manners and customs, and they always will be. * * * Ac- 
cordingly, long before the light of the Reformation began 
to dawn upon the churches, the Roman Catholics them- 
selves were gradually adopting the method of baptism by 
sprinkling or affusion, notwithstanding their superstitious 
and excessive devotedness to the usages of the ancient 
church. * * * All this serves to illustrate how there 
sprang up, in the bosom of a church superstitiously devoted 
to ancient rites and forms, a conviction that the mode of 
baptism was one of the adiaphora of religion — i. e., some- 
thing unessential to the rite itself, and which might be 
modified by time and place, without any encroachment 
upon the command itself to baptize. Gradually did this 
conviction increase until the whole Roman Catholic 
Church, that of Milan only excepted, admit it. By far the 
greater part of the Protestant world have also acceded to 
the same views. Even the English Episcopal Church and 
the Lutheran Church, both zealous in times past for what 
they supposed to be apostolic and really ancient usage, 
have had no difficulty in adopting modes of baptism quite 



HISTORY OF SPRINKLING, ETC. 39I 

different from that of immersion." Stuart on Baptism, 
pp. 169-172. 

Thus we see that Prof. Stuart thinks that the church 
may change the forms and usages of worship just as a man 
may change his dress to suit time and place. He shows 
us, with an air of seeming pleasure, that the Roman Cath- 
olic Church had gradually left her devotedness to the usages 
of the ancient church and adopted sprinkling and pouring, 
and that the Protestant churches had followed her example. 
Daniel prophesied of a power that should "speak great 
swelling words against the Most High, and think to change 
times and laws ; and they shall be given into his hand 
until a time and times and the dividing of time ; but the 
judgment shall sit, and they shall take his dominion to 
consume and to destroy it -unto the end." Dan. vii : 25, 
26. Does not the power assigned by Prof. Stuart to the 
church resemble that claimed by the government spoken 
of by Daniel ? Though he seemed to triumph for a time, 
judgment came upon him in the end. 

Let us learn a lesson here, and seek not to change laws 
and times which God has arranged in accordance with His 
own will. " Let no man deceive you by any means ; for 
that day shall not come, except there come a falling away 
first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition ; 
who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called 
God, or that is worshiped ; so that he as God sitteth in 
the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 
2 Thess. ii : 3, 4. 

The Pope of Rome has gone on from one act of usur- 
pation to another, changed the act of baptism in accord- 
ance with his views of propriety, and has, finally, had 
himself proclaimed infallible, thus sitting in the temple of 
God and seeking to show himself that he is God. But 
Daniel said a day of judgment would come that would 



392 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

break the power of the usurper, and we feel encouraged to 
hope that the day of his power is fast drawing to a close. 
Will Protestant parties continue to cling to the changes 
which he has made for them in the divine law ? " Why- 
call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say ?" 
Luke vi : 46. " If ye love me, keep my commandments." 
John xiv: 15. 



CHAPTER XIII 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED i 



WHEN Jesus commanded the apostles to " Teach 
all nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," Matt, 
xxviii : 19, there was an implied obligation upon those to 
whom they were sent, to submit to be baptized by them. 
Upon whom did this obligation rest ? These may and 
should be baptized ; none others may, unless other author- 
ity be shown for it. That penitent, believing adults should 
be baptized is admitted by all parties ; we need not, there- 
fore, stop to offer proof of what no one denies. But it is 
insisted that he who has submitted to the divine injunc- 
tion himself, should also have his infant children baptized, 
and thus brought into the church with him. This we re- 
spectfully deny ; hence the onus of proof rests upon him 
who so affirms. Our first duty, therefore, is to examine 
the proofs presented by him, and if these be found satis- 
factory and conclusive, our duty is clear without further 
investigation ; for we may be assured that the Bible, faith- 
fully translated and construed, will nowhere contradict 
that which is clearly taught in it. 

We know of but three ways by which the practice of 
infant baptism could be taught in the Divine Volume, 
First : By the express command of the Lord, or some one 
speaking by inspiration. Second : By example ; i. e., 
where the Lord, or some inspired man, baptized infants, 

(393) 



394 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

or where it was done in his presence, by his consent or 
approval. Third : By a passage of Scripture from which 
the baptism of infants is a necessary inference. A merely 
possible inference is not sufficient, for while a thing is only 
possibly true, it is still possible for it to be false. We be- 
lieve it is very generally admitted that there is no express 
command for, or exampte of, infant baptism recorded in 
the Bible, hence inferential proof is all we may expect 
from those who advocate the practice. It may be well to 
see how this is, for a concession so important, from those 
who advocate the practice in question, will greatly dimin- 
ish the area of our investigation. We will hear what they 
say on the subject. 

i. Dr. Moses Stuart says: "On the subject of infant 
baptism I have said nothing. The present occasion did 
not call for it ; and I have no wish or intention to enter 
into the controversy respecting it. I have only to say, 
that I believe in both the propriety and expediency of the 
rite thus administered, and therefore accede to it ex animo. 
Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New 
Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views 
of it do I need them.' Stuart on Baptism, pp. 189, 190. 

2. Bishop Burnet : " There is no express precept or rule 
given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants." 
Expos, of 39 Articles, in Booth Abridged, p. 116. 

3. Dr. Wall : " Among all the persons that are re- 
corded as baptized by the apostles, there is no express 
mention of any infant. There is no express mention of 
any children baptized by them." Hist. Inf. Bap. in Booth 
Abridged, p. 116. 

4. Luther : " It can not be proved by the sacred 
Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, 
or began by the first Christians after the apostles." Ut 
supra. 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 395 

5. Baxter : " I know of no one word in Scripture, that 
giveth us the least intimation that ever man was bap- 
tized without the profession of a saving faith, or that 
giveth the least encouragement to baptize any upon 
another *s faith." Ut supra. 

6. Wills : " Christ did many things that were not re- 
corded, and so did the apostles ; whereof this was one, 
for aught we know, the baptizing of infants. Calvin, in his 
fourth book of Institutes, Chap, xvi, confesseth, that it is 
nowhere expressly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any 
one child was by the apostles baptized. To the same 
purpose are Stophilus, Melancthon, Turinglius quoted." 
Inf. Bap. Asserted in Booth Abridged, p. 117. 

7. Palmer : " There is nothing in the words of the in- 
stitution, nor in any after accounts of the administration 
of this rite, respecting the baptism of infants ; there is not 
a single precept for, nor example of, this practice, through 
the whole New Testament." Ut supra. 

8. Limborch : " There is no express command for it in 
Scripture, nay, all those passages wherein baptism is 
commanded do immediately relate to adult persons, since 
they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is prerequisite 
as a necessary qualification, which are peculiar to adults 
alone. There is no instance that can be produced, from 
whence it may indisputably be inferred that any child 
was baptized by the apostles. The necessity of Pedobap- 
tism was never asserted by any council before that of 
Carthage, held in the year four hundred and eighteen." 
Ut supra. 

9. Erasmus: "Paul does not seem (in Rom. v: 14), to 
treat about infants. It was not yet the custom for infants 
to be baptized." Annotations on Rom. in Booth Abridged, 
p. 118. 

10. T. Boston : " It is plain that he [Peter, in Acts ii : 



396 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

38] requires their repentance antecedently to baptism, as 
necessary to qualify them for the right and due reception 
thereof. And there is no example of baptism recorded in 
the Scriptures, when any were baptized, but such as ap- 
peared to have a saving interest in Christ." Ut supra. 

11. Bishop Sanderson: "The baptism of infants, and 
the sprinkling of water in baptism, instead of immersing the 
wh<5le body, must be exterminated from the church — ac- 
cording to their principle ; u e., that nothing can be law- 
fully performed, much less required, in the affairs of re- 
ligion, which is not either commanded by God in the 
Scripture, or at least recommended by a laudable exam- 
ple." Ut supra. 

12. Cellarius : "Infant baptism is neither commanded 
in the sacred Scripture, nor is confirmed by apostolic ex- 
amples." Ut supra. 

13. Dr. Knapp : "There is, therefore, no express com- 
mand for infant baptism found in the New Testament, as 
Morris (p. 215, s. 12) justly concedes. Infant baptism has 
been often defended on very unsatisfactory a priori 
grounds, e. g., necessity of it has been contended for, in 
order that children may obtain by it the faith which is 
necessary to salvation, etc. It is sufficient to show ; (1) 
That infant baptism was not forbidden by Christ, and is 
not opposed to his will, and the principles of his religion, 
but entirely suited to both ; (2) That it was probably prac- 
ticed even in the apostolic church; (3) That it is not 
without advantages." Lectures on Christian Theology, p. 

494- 

14. We may close this testimony by the declarations of 
Henry Ward Beecher, who is quoted in the Louisville De- 
bate, page 173, as saying:* "That he had no authority 
from the Bible for the baptism of infants, and that he 

* This was published in The Christian Union by Mr. Beecher. 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 397 

wanted none ; that he had better authority for it than if 
even the Bible commanded it ; that he had tried it, and 
knew from actual experience that it was a good thing; he 
had the same divine authority for it that he had for mak- 
ing an ox-yoke — it worked well — and, therefore, it was 
from God." 

The foregoing list might be extended much further ; but 
these quotations are deemed sufficient to warrant us in 
regarding it as a fact, conceded that there is no divine 
command, nor apostolic precedent for the baptism of in- 
fants. It is insisted that the writers of the New Testa- 
ment were all Pedobaptists ; if so, is not such profound 
reticence on the subject a little remarkable, to say the least 
of it ? They record the baptism of vast numbers of be- 
lievers ', just as though infant baptism had then never been 
heard of; and Luke tells us that when the Samaritans 
" Believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were 
baptized, both men and women." Acts viii : 12. Is it not 
strange that he should be so specific as to mention the 
baptism of men and women, and say nothing about the 
multitudes of dear little children that were baptized ? 
Their baptism could not have been a matter of less im- 
portance than that of the men and women, if indeed they 
were baptized at all. Would any of our Pedobaptist 
friends imitate Luke's example were they now writing the 
narrative ? Would they not likely say " They were bap- 
tized, men, women, and children ? " They are specifi- 
cally mentioned in matters not less worthy of note. 
When the covenant of circumcision was instituted in the 
family of Abraham the Lord said : " He that is eight days 
old shall be circumcised among you, every male child in 
your generations, he that is born in thy house, or bought 
with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed." 



398 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Gen. xvii : 12. Here is a rite applicable to infants, and 
we find that even the age of the child to be circumcised 
is specifically given. Numerous examples can be found 
recorded where this rite was performed according to the 
law. "Abraham circumcised his son Isaac, being eight 
days old, as God had commanded him." Gen. xxi : 4 
" And when eight days were accomplished for the circum- 
cising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was 
so named of the angel before he was conceived in the 
womb." Luke ii : 21. Is it not a little strange, if bap- 
tism was made obligatory on children, that we can not as 
easily find examples of it as of circumcision ! When Pha- 
raoh issued his decree for the destruction of the Hebrew 
children, he said: " When ye do the office of a midwife to 
the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools, if it be 
a son, then ye shall kill him." Ex. i : 16. When Herod 
determined upon the destruction of the infant Saviour, he 
" Sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth- 
lehem, and in all the coasts thereof,- from two years old 
and under." Matt, ii : 16. When Jesus miraculously fed 
the multitudes, the children are not forgotten in the nar- 
rative. " They that had eaten were about five thousand 
men, beside women and children!' Matt, xiv : 21. Nor 
are they omitted in the record of the second occurrence. 
"They that did eat were four thousand men, beside 
women and children." Matt, xv : 38. When infants were 
brought to the master that they might receive His heav- 
enly benediction, He said : " Suffer little children, and for- 
bid them not, to come unto me ; for of such is the king- 
dom of heaven." Matt, xix : 14. This account is pre- 
served in the records of Mark and Luke also. When 
Paul and company bade a final adieu to the disciples at 
the city of Tyre, the historian informs us that " They all 
brought us on our way, with wives and childreii, till we 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 399 

were out of the city : and we kneeled down on the shore, 
and prayed." Acts xxi : 5. 

Thus we see that infants were deemed worthy of men- 
tion in all matters with which they were in any way con- 
nected ; even in cases where they did nothing but to sat- 
isfy the demands of hunger, or were brought out of a 
city in company with those who were parting with a 
friend ; where no doctrine is involved, no duty enforced, 
no dispute settled ; yet we are asked to believe that they 
were baptized in obedience to the command of the Lord 
Jesus, by inspired men, and no record of the fact ; when 
such a record would have prevented bitter contention and 
strife ; much labor in preaching and writing ; and would 
have secured the performance of a duty now bound to be 
neglected by many millions of devoted followers of the 
Master for want of the knowledge which such a record 
would have furnished. 

Luke says : " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand 
to set forth in order a declaration of those things which 
are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered 
them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewit- 
nesses and ministers of the word ; it seemed good to me 
also, having had perfect understanding of all things from 
the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent 
Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of these 
things, wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke i : 1-4. 
Again he says : " The former treatise have I made, O 
Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to 
teach." Acts i : I. The sum of these quotations is that 
Luke had a perfect understanding of all things which 
Jesus did and taught ; and that he wrote in order that The- 
ophilus might know the certainty of the whole matter as 
believed among the disciples. Certainly, then, we may 
justly conclude that no important matter was omitted 



400 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

which had not been perfectly taught by some one else. 
Hence, as he says not a word about infant baptism we 
may feel tolerably sure that it was not taught or practiced 
by Jesus, nor believed among the disciples with whom he 
associated. When he tells us that " Saul made havoc of 
the church, entering into every house, and haling men and 
women, committed them to prison" (Acts viii : 3), we 
may justly conclude that infants escaped the fierceness of 
his wrath, otherwise they would have been mentioned as 
well as men and women. We are strengthened in this 
conclusion by the fact already seen that it was his custom 
to mention them where they were connected with the 
matter recorded. Then as he speaks of the baptism of 
multitudes of believers, at different times and places, and 
under different circumstances, even mentioning men and 
women, and yet says nothing of the baptism of a single 
infant, we conclude that none were baptized, or he would 
have mentioned the fact somewhere ; especially when he 
must have known that what he was writing would not 
only furnish an interesting history of past events, but 
would constitute a rule of action for the government of God's 
people as long as time should endure. 

Paul told Timothy that " all scripture is given by inspi- 
ration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, 
for correction, for instruction in righteousness : that the 
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
good works." 2 Tim. iii : 16, 17. The Scriptures can not 
be profitable for the doctrine of infant baptism, for its ad- 
vocates admit that they say nothing about it. If infant 
baptism be a duty, the Scriptures furnish no reproof for 
those who neglect it. If it be a crime to oppose infant 
baptism, the Scriptures furnish no correction for the error. 
If infant baptism be right, the Scriptures furnish no in- 
struction to those whose duty it is to perform it. If the 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 401 

Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and 
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be 
perfect, as they say nothing about infant baptism, it follows 
that the man of God may attain to perfection without it. 
If the Scriptures not only furnish, but thoroughly furnish 
the man of God not only to some, but to all good works, 
as they are confessedly silent on the subject of infant bap- 
tism, |t follows that it is not a good work, otherwise the 
man of God would be thoroughly furnished with instruc- 
tion concerning the baptism of infants. 

While considering the conceded fact that the Scriptures 
say nothing about the baptism of infants, we will hear an- 
other apostle on this subject. Peter says: "Grace and 
peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of 
God, and of Jesus our Lord; according as his divine power 
hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and 
godliness, through the knowledge of him who hath called 
us to glory and virtue." 2 Pet. i : 2, 3. Here is a clear 
intimation that God has given us all things, through the 
knowledge of His Son revealed in the gospel, which per- 
tain to life and godliness. And as He has given us noth- 
ing on the subject of infant baptism, we conclude that it 
neither pertains to life nor godliness. We are commanded 
to do all : " Whatsoever we do, in word or deed, do all in 
the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the 
Father by him." Col. iii : 17. We understand this pas- 
sage to teach that we are to do all things done at all by 
the authority of the Lord Jesus. How, then, can a man, 
standing in the presence of God, with his hand lifted to- 
ward heaven, say, " In the name or by the authority of 
the Lord Jesus, I baptize this child," when he acknowl- 
edges that the Word of the Lord furnishes neither com- 
mand nor example for what he is doing ? Could Prof. 
Stuart baptize a child in the name or by the authority of 
34 



402 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the Lord Jesus after saying : " Commands, or plain and 
certain examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I 
do not find ?" Surely, he could not adopt the maxim of 
the justly celebrated Chillingworth, that "the Bible only 
is the religion of Protestants." If this maxim is 
worthy of all acceptation, well may we ask, in the language 
of Ambrose, " Who shall speak where Scripture is silent ?" 
Dare we baptize an infant in the name of the Lord Jesus 
if He has not appointed it ? When Peter commanded the 
Pentecostians to be baptized, he did it in the " name of 
Jesus Christ." Acts ii : 38. He also commanded the 
Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, " to be baptized in the 
name of the Lord." Acts x : 48. And surely, such exam- 
ples are worthy of our imitation ; if so, there is an implied 
prohibition of administering this sacred rite in any other 
name or by any other authority. Surely, then, if Dr. 
Beecher was right when he said, in substance, that he had 
no higher authority for baptizing an infant than for mak- 
ing an ox-yoke, it had better be left undone. God will not 
condemn us in the great day of judgment for a failure to 
do that which He has nowhere commanded ; but there 
may be danger in performing a thing in the sacred name 
of His Son for which we can not find authority in the 
Book by which we are to be judged. 

The Lord said that the way of holiness should be so 
plain that "the wayfaring men, though fools, should not 
err therein." Isa. xxxv : 8. Hence, when Jesus sent 
chosen men to proclaim the gospel of peace and the ap- 
proach of the kingdom of heaven, their mission was not 
confined to the wealthy who had been reared in opulence 
and learned in all the literature of the age in which they 
lived, but " the poor had the gospel preached to them." 
Matt, xi : 5. Yet we are asked to believe that these uned- 
ucated poor were to learn the duty of baptizing their chil- 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 403 

dren from oral instructions which not once mentioned it, 
and in a country where they never once saw an example 
of it. And after the New Testament was written, the 
primitive Christians are expected to take a copy of it and 
learn the duty of baptizing their children from a record 
which furnishes not a command for it or an example of it. 
Nay, these unlettered fishermen, mechanics, and plowmen 
are expected to arrive at a knowledge of their duty from 
a careful examination of the covenants which God made 
with Abraham, and by identifying them with the New 
Covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus. Those who 
lived later might also study the Talmud, and familiarize 
themselves with the writings of 'Maimonides and other 
Jewish rabbis and doctors of the law, from whom to learn 
that the children of proselytes were baptized along with 
their parents, and infer therefrom that the Lord conde- 
scended to borrow the baptism of infants from those who 
believed Him an impostor and worthy of death. Nor must 
they stop here, but they must study the writings of Moses 
until familiar with the antiquated rite of circumcision ; and, 
notwithstanding the many marks of dissimilarity, infer 
that baptism came in its room, and therefore, as male chil- 
dren were circumcised under the law, therefore males and 
females must be baptized under the gospel of the Son of 
God. Such are some of the sources from which the un- 
lettered poor are expected to learn the duty of baptizing 
their children ; and we next propose to examine them and 
see whether or not they furnish just grounds for even in- 
ferring infant baptism, though it were possible for all to 
understand them. 

And, first, it is assumed that God has had but one 
church on the earth, and that it has existed at least since 
the days of Abraham ; that the church now is the same 
church that then was ; and that infants were members of 



4O4 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the church then, and having never been put out, are mem- 
bers of it now ; that all members of the church should 
be baptized — ergo, infants, being members, should be 
baptized. 

We believe this is a fair statement of the argument, but 
before we enter upon an examination of its merits we 
would respectfully call attention to a want of consistency 
in the pleadings of those who advocate it. The argument 
is based upon the assumption that infants are members of 
the church, and as such should be baptized ; yet they tell 
us that they should be baptized in order to bring them into 
the church. In the ministration of baptism to infants the 
Methodist Discipline instructs the administrator to say : 
" Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and 
born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter 
into the kingdom of God, I beseech you to call upon God 
the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his 
bounteous mercy he will grant to this child that which by 
nature he can not have ; that he may be baptized with 
water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy 
church, and be made a lively member of the same." 

Please observe that the minister instructs the congrega- 
tion to pray that the child to be baptized may be received 
into the church and made a lively member of it. Then he 
leads them in the following prayer : " Almighty and ever- 
lasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and 
his family in the ark from perishing by water ; and also 
didst safely lead the children of Israel, thy people, through 
the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy baptism : we be- 
seech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt look 
upon this child: wash him, and sanctify him with the Holy 
Ghost ; that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be 
received into the ark of Christ's church." Methodist Dis- 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 405 

cipline, pp. 159, 160. What can this mean? Clearly, it 
means nothing less than that the child is baptized to intro- 
duce it into the church, and yet the very foundation of the 
argument stated is that it must be baptized because in 
the church already. 

Mr. Henry, in his Treatise on Baptism, p. 40, says : "The 
gospel contains not only a doctrine but a covenant ; and 
by baptism we are brought into that covenant." And 
again : " Baptism is an ordinance of Christ, whereby the 
person baptized is solemnly admitted a member of the 
visible church." Ibid, p. 66. Then page 79, he says : 
" Baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace, and therefore 
belongs to those who are in that covenant (at least by 
profession), and to none other. The infants of believing 
parents are in covenant with God, and therefore have a 
right to the initiating seal of that covenant." Again, page 
66, he says : " Baptism is an ordinance of the visible 
church, and pertains, therefore, to those who are visible 
members of the church. Their covenant right and their 
church membership entitle them to baptism. Baptism 
doth not give the title, but recognizes it." 

Other quotations might be given, but these are deemed 
sufficient to show the want of consistency on the subject 
referred to. The argument is as changeable as the colors 
of a chameleon. At one time parents are admonished to 
dedicate their children to God in baptism, and bring them 
into covenant and church relation with them ; and we are 
severely reprimanded for denying the dear children the 
privilege of entering the church with their parents by bap- 
tism ; and anon the order is reversed, and the little babes 
are in the church — in covenant relation with God with 
their parents, and for this very reason should be baptized. 
Thus it is that infants must be baptized because not in 
the church to bring them in ; and they must be baptized 



406 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

because they are in it, and entitled to its ordinances as 
members of it. 

But if all children of believing parents are born mem- 
bers of the church, and on that account are entitled to 
baptism, then we would be pleased to know what church 
they enter by baptism, and what means their so-called re- 
ception into the church when they are grown and make a 
profession of religion ? First : We are told that infants of 
believing parents are born members of the church, and 
should be baptized because they are in it. Second : " Bap- 
tism is for the solemn admission of the party baptized into 
the church." What church ? Third : They grow up to 
mature years, attend a protracted meeting, make a profes- 
sion of religion ; the doors are opened for the reception of 
members, and they join the church. What church ? Is 
there one church into which they enter at birth, another 
into which they enter by baptism, and still another into 
which they enter by formal reception after "getting relig- 
ion ?" In a previous chapter, we have seen that there is 
one church, and only one. Are we to understand that the 
infant was born a member of it and subsequently re-entered 
the church of which it was born a member ? If so, did 
it forfeit its previous membership in some way so as to 
make other admissions necessary ? If it did, we would be 
pleased to know how, and when, or at what age the forfeit- 
ure was effected, and whether or not the church formally 
declared non-fellowship with it. 

Again : If there be blessings conferred upon infants by 
baptism, why are they restricted to the children of be- 
lieving parents ? Are the children of unbelievers to be 
made responsible for the sins of their parents so as to de- 
prive them of gospel privileges which belong to and are 
enjoyed by others of their age ? Where is the authority 
for such discrimination ? If one infant may be baptized, 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 407 

surely all others may. Indeed, we have observed quite a 
disposition to a change of position here in modern times. 
Formerly, debaters were willing to affirm that the children 
of believing parents were proper subjects of baptism ; 
now they can not be induced to make such a discrimina- 
tion, but will affirm only the general proposition that in- 
fants are proper subjects. We are rather pleased at this. 
If infant baptism be a blessing, let all have the benefit of 
it. But does not such shifting of ground show that there 
is nothing taught in the gospel in favor of it ? It occurs 
to us that if the practice were clearly taught it would be 
understood, and there would be no need of changing theo- 
ries concerning it. 

Once more : If infants enter the church either by birth 
or baptism, why are they not fit subjects for and admitted 
to the Lord's table ? Surely, if they are members of the 
church., they should be entitled to all the privileges of full 
membership. Then, why not give them the bread and 
wine, as emblems of the body and blood of the Lord, which 
belong to all who are members of the body of which He is 
the head ? Do you tell me that they can not partake of 
these emblems discerning the Lord's body? Then, for this 
very reason they are not competent for membership in the 
church where such a duty is enjoined upon them. We 
know of no reason why they should not be admitted to the 
Lord's table, which would not apply to their membership 
in the church with at lea'st equal force. Does the gospel 
contain any special reason why they should be excused, 
as members of the church, from participation in the Lord's 
Supper ? If not, are they not entitled to it ? Nay, are 
they not bound to eat if members at all ? No member of 
the church can be debarred from the emblematic body and 
blood of the Lord unless he has made himself unworthy 
by the commission of crime, such as infants are incapable 



408 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of committing, Then, we insist that those who regard in- 
fants as members of the church should give them the bread 
and wine to which all members are entitled, or show the 
law excusing them. 

Finally, as infants come into the church, according to 
the theory, without faith or repentance, it is not easy for 
us to see how such graces may be demanded of them in 
mature years. If they may enter the church without faith 
or repentance, surely they could remain members without 
them ; why should they be treated as aliens or rebels for 
a want of faith or repentance in adult age, when they en- 
tered the church and lived in it for years without either ? 
Indeed, no such qualifications were at all necessary to 
membership in the Jewish church ; and if the church now 
is but a continuance of the same church which existed 
then, why should they be required now ? No faith, change 
of heart, repentance, purity of life, or holiness was essen- 
tial to membership in the Jewish churches. Every species 
of crime was perpetrated by those who lived and died in 
that church. If the same church exists now, and infants 
are in it because such were in it then, why may not adults 
be in it without faith, repentance, or any thing spiritual, 
seeing such were in it then. Persons were born members 
of the church then and continued in it until death, how- 
ever wicked they may have lived ; why not now ? But 
suppose they are not now born members of the church, 
but enter it by baptism, the same results must follow. 
Many thousands of those who are baptized in infancy be- 
come wicked, and remain through life as wicked as men 
ever get to be, even never making any pretense of Christi- 
anity in any way ; hence, if they entered the church when 
baptized, they live and die in it, for we never hear of any 
such being excluded from the church because they become 
wicked ; and therefore the church is as full of depravity and 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 4O9 

wickedness as is the dominion of Satan. There is no vis- 
ible line of separation between the world and the church. 
Those in the church are just as wicked as those out of it, 
for we have never been able to see any difference in the 
ungodly who were baptized in infancy and those who 
were not. Nor is this the worst ; if infants must be bap- 
tized because infants were in the Jewish church, then the 
wickedest man living may be baptized for a similar reason. 
We suppose there is not a worse man alive than lived in 
the Jewish church, and if infants may be baptized because 
infants were in that church, we see not why all other classes 
similar to those in that church may not be baptized. Will 
the advocates of the theory accept the results of their 
logic, and baptize every wicked man, because such were in 
the Jewish church ? If not, the argument based upon 
infant membership must be abandoned. 

In a previous chapter we attempted to show that the 
church now in existence was organized in Jerusalem on 
the day of Pentecost ; we need not, therefore, further ex- 
amine this subject here, but we may call attention to some 
facts, not presented there, showing that it can not be the 
same organization which existed in the days of Abraham, 
or in the days of Moses. The Church of Christ differs 
from the so-called Jewish church in the fact that it was 
based upon another covenant. There were two classes of 
promises made by God to Abraham. One pertained to 
the flesh and temporal interests, and the other to matters 
spiritual. God said, " I am the Almighty God : walk be- 
fore me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my cove- 
nant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceed- 
ingly. And Abram fell on his face : and God talked with 
him, saying, As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, 
and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall 
thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall 
35 



4IO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made 
thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will 
make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee 
and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an ever- 
lasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed 
after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed 
after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land 
of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their 
God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my 
covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their 
generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, 
between me and you and thy seed after thee : Every man 
child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall cir- 
cumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; and it shall be a token 
of the covenant between me and you." Gen. xvii : i-ir. 
In this covenant God promises Abraham a numerous 
fleshly offspring and the land of Canaan, as a permanent 
inheritance, and instituted circumcision as a token of the 
covenant thus made. This covenant was renewed with 
Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, and upon it the Jewish church or 
commonwealth was organized. That the covenant of cir- 
cumcision was incorporated into the law of Moses may be 
seen by the language of the Savior, saying, " If a man on 
the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of 
Moses should -not be broken." John vii : 23. That the 
covenant made with Abraham, and renewed with Isaac 
and Jacob, was renewed with Moses, is shown by the lan- 
guage of Moses himself. He says, " Keep therefore the 
words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper 
in all that ye do. Ye stand this day all of you before the 
Lord your God ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, 
and your officers, with all the men of Israel. Your little 
ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 41 I 

from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water : 
That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord 
thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God 
maketh with thee this day : That he may establish thee 
to-day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto 
thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath 
sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to 
Jacob." Deut. xxix: 9-13. Thus we clearly identify the 
covenant concerning Abraham's fleshly descendants, the 
land of Canaan, and the right of circumcision with the 
covenant made with Moses ; and Paul says Jesus " Blotted 
out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, 
which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, 
nailing it to his cross." Col. 11 : 14. 

But there was another class of promises spiritual in 
their nature. When Abraham offered his son, as com- 
manded of God, "And the Angel of the Lord called unto 
Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By 
myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou 
hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine 
only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multi- 
plying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, 
and as the sand which is upon the sea shore ; and thy 
seed shall possess the gate of his enemies ; and in thy 
seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed ; because 
thou hast obeyed my voice." Gen xxii : 15-18. Now let 
it be carefully observed that this promise was based upon 
the express ground of Abraham's obedience in offering 
Isaac. " Because thou hast done this tiring" " Because 
thou hast obeyed my voice." And Paul quotes the language 
of this promise as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He says : " Now 
to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He 
saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And 
to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. iii : 16. That these 



412 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

different sets of promises constituted at least a plurality 
of covenants, may be seen in the language of Paul con- 
cerning the Gentiles before the coming of Christ. He 
says : "At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the 
covenants of promise." Eph. ii : 12. Here is a clear in- 
timation that the promises made to Abraham consti- 
tuted more than one covenant. Upon the promise made 
at the offering of Isaac was based the new and better 
covenant, established upon better promises (Heb. viii : 6), 
which was predicted by the Lord through his prophet, as 
follows : 

" Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will 
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with 
the house of Judah : not according to the covenant that 
I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by 
the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; which 
my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto 
them, saith the Lord : but this shall be the covenant that 
I will make with the house of Israel after those days, 
saith the Lord : I will put my law in their inward parts, and 
write it in their hearts ; and will be their God, and they 
shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every 
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 
Know the Lord : for they shall all know me, from the 
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord : 
for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their 
sin no more." Jer. xxxi : 31-34. That this new covenant 
was that of which Christ became the mediator is evident 
from the fact that Paul quotes the language as an argu- 
ment to show that the old covenant had given place to 
the new. He says, " But now hath he obtained a more 
excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator 
of a better covenant, which was established upon better 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 413 

promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, 
then should no place have been sought for the second. 
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days 
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant 
with the house of Israel, and with the 'house of Judah : 
not according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead 
them out of the land of Egypt ; because they continued not 
in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house 
of Israel after those days, saith the Lord : I will put my 
laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts ; and 
I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people : 
and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and 
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for all 
shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will 
be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and 
iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, a 
new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which 
decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb. 
viii : 6-13. 

We would respectfully call the reader's attention to 
several important thoughts presented in the foregoing 
quotation. The Lord said He would make a new cove- 
nant, hence it was not an old one, made prior to the time 
He used the language quoted. Paul gives us several 
reasons why this new covenant was necessary, and he 
mentions several important points in which it differs 
from the old covenant. First: Those to whom the first 
covenant was given broke it — continued not in it, and 
hence God ceased to regard them. Second : The first 
was a faulty covenant, hence it became necessary to have 
a better covenant, established upon better promises, the 
provisions of which were not according to the old one. 



414 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Third : The laws of the old covenant were engraven on 
stone ; those of the new were to be written in the hearts 
of the people. Fourth: The subjects of the old covenant 
became such by natural birth, or were purchased with 
money, and hence could not know the Lord until taught 
by such as had reached mature years ; the subjects of the 
new covenant have to be born again to enter the king- 
dom based upon it, and hence have to be all taught to 
know the Lord before they believe in Him, and become 
subjects of His government ; this being so, there are no 
infants among them, because they can not know the 
Lord, or have his laws written in their hearts. Fifth: 
Under the old covenant those who violated its laws died 
without mercy under two or three witnesses (Heb. x: 
28) ; under the new covenant God is merciful to the un- 
righteousness of its subjects. Sixth : Under the old cove- 
nant, sins were pardoned only a year at a time. " For in 
those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of 
sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of 
bulls and of goats should take away sins." Heb. x : 3, 4. 
Under the new covenant, one of its chief excellencies is 
that sins once pardoned are remembered no more. 

As this position is fiercely assailed by some, and 
doubted by others, it may be well for us to give it more 
than a passing notice. If the sins pardoned under the 
old covenant were forever pardoned, why was it necessary 
that this should be mentioned as one of the superior pro- 
visions of the new covenant ? Wherein is it a better cov- 
enant in this respect than the old ? Was Paul mistaken 
when he said : " It is not possible that the blood of bulls 
and of goats should take away sin ? " Surely the blood of 
these sacrifices did take them away if they were- forever 
pardoned by them. Paul says: "How much more shall 
the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 415 

himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God ? And for this cause 
he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means 
of death, for the redemption of the transgressions, that 
were under the first testament, they which are called 
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Heb. 
ix : 14, 15. Why was it necessary that Jesus should die 
for the redemption of the transgressions which were under 
the first testament if they were forever pardoned by the 
offerings made according to its provisions ? If we at all 
comprehend the language of Paul, he meant to teach that 
Jesus died for the redemption of the transgressions com- 
mitted under the first testament, that those who were 
called by it might receive the eternal inheritance promised 
them. All the offerings made under the law looked to, 
and were perfected by, the death of Jesus Christ. " He 
taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering 
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest 
standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the 
same sacrifices, which can neve}' take away sins ; but this 
man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat 
down on the right hand of God ; from henceforth expect- 
ing till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one 
offering he hath perfected forever them that are sancti- 
fied. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us : for 
after that he hath said before, This is the covenant that 
I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord : 
I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds 
will I write them ; and their sins and iniquities will I 
remember no more. Now where remission of these is, 
there is no more offerings for sin." Heb. x: 9-18. Thus 
we see that the apostle argues this question at great 
length, to show this as one of the great points of superi- 






41 6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ority in the new covenant over the old ; and it seems to 
us that it could not have been made more plain. Then, 
as it is a new and better covenant, established upon bet- 
ter promises, why should any one want to get back under 
the old and faulty covenant, which has been taken out of 
the way to make room for a better one? 

But we are told that it was the law given by Moses, 
when the Jews were delivered from Egyptian bondage, 
which was the old covenant which was taken out of the 
way, and not the covenant made with Abraham. We have 
seen that the covenant made with Abraham was renewed 
with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses (see Deut. xxix : 9-13) ; and 
we have seen that even circumcision belonged to the law 
of Moses. (See John vii : 23). Surely this was given to 
Abraham (Gen. xvii : 9-14) ; and we suppose no one, un- 
less a Jew, will contend that it has not been taken out of 
the way ; hence it is unsafe to affirm that a covenant has 
not been taken out of the way because it was given to 
Abraham. But it does not matter what covenant it was 
that was taken out of the way ; the one of which Christ is 
mediator is the one which concerns us, and it is the new 
covenant ; and the prophecy concerning it was made long 
after, not before the time when the Lord delivered the 
Jews from Egyptian bondage. Long after that time the 
Lord said, Behold the days come, (not have passed), when 
/ will make a new cove?iant (not have made a covenant 
long years ago) ; hence it could not have been a covenant 
made with Abraham, or with any one else prior to the 
time God made this declaration by Jeremiah ; and it was 
to be made with the house of Israel and with the house 
of Judah — houses which had no existence in the days of 
Abraham, nor until long years afterward. How, then, 
could it refer to a covenant made with him ? 

But the Jewish church was only half as large as the 



WHO SHUULD BE BAPTIZED? 417 

Christian church. While that was confined to the Jews, 
this is for every creature among all nations who will ac- 
cept its blessings on the terms proposed. Here, too, is 
another striking evidence that the new and better cove- 
nant, of which Christ is the mediator, was based upon the 
promise of God to Abraham at the offering of Isaac. 
" In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; 
because thou hast obeyed my voice." Gen. xxii : 18. As 
long as the Jewish church existed, the Gentiles were re- 
fused the privileges of it. Paul says : u Wherefore re- 
member, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, 
who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the 
Circumcision in the flesh made by hands ; that at that 
time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the com- 
monwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world : 
but now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were far off 
are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our 
peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down 
the middle wall of partition between us ; having abolished 
in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments 
contained in ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain 
one new man, so making peace ; and that he might rec- 
oncile both unto God in one body by the cross, having 
slain the enmity thereby." Eph. ii : 1 1-16. Here we 
find that the law, which stood as a middle wall between 
Jews and Gentiles for ages, and had kept the latter from 
any participation in the worship of God with the former, 
was taken out of the way, by the death of Christ, and one 
new man or church was made of both Jews and Gentiles, 
who participated in its privileges upon terms of perfect 
equality. It is agreed by all parties that the phrase new 
man here simply means a new church. Under the old 
dispensation the Gentiles were without Christ, aliens 



41 8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

from the Jewish commonwealth, and strangers from the 
covenants of promise ; but, under the new covenant, they 
enter into, and are members of the one church composed 
of all nations, to whom the gospel is preached, and for 
whom Jesus died. Observe it is not an enlarged church, 
an improved church, or a renewed church, but a new 
church, hence we see not how it can be the same old 
church which existed in the days of Abraham and Moses. 
Jesus says : " No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto 
an old garment ; for that which is put in to fill it up tak- 
eth away from the garment, and the rent is made worse. 
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles '. else the 
bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles 
perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both 
are preserved." Matt, ix : 16, 17 ; Mark ii : 22 ; Luke v : 
36-38. Now it occurs to us that those who seek to re- 
tain the old Jewish church are doing just the thing which 
the Lord here condemned. They seek to enlarge it so 
as to include the Gentiles, leaving off its ceremonies, car- 
nal ordinances, and festivals : and fill up the rents with 
infant baptism and other human traditions, and thus 
patch up the old garment with a little Christianity and a 
good supply of the commandments of men, and make a 
worse system than Judaism itself. 

If the church of Christ or kingdom of God is the 
same church which existed in the days of Abraham and 
Moses, why did those who had been brought up in the 
Jewish church have still to enter the church established by 
the authority of the Lord ? When Nicodemus recognized 
the divine character and mission of Jesus, he expected, 
doubtless, that, as a descendant of Abraham, he would be 
recognized as a ruler in the kingdom or church of God ; 
but all his claims based upon Jewish birth were met with 
the solemn announcement that, " Except a man be born of 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 419 

water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the king- 
dom of God." John iii : 5. It is not strange that such a 
declaration should have astonished him, for he had the 
same notion of the continuance of the Jewish church 
which Pedobaptists seem to have now. As they view it 
could he not reply, " I have been in the church all my life, 
and am now a ruler of the Jews — a master of Israel, and 
you speak to ME of having yet to enter the church or 
kingdom into which I was born ! Still he is met with the 
cool reply : " Marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be 
born again." Verse 7. Was not this equivalent to saying : 
" I know you were born into the Jewish church, but My 
kingdom or church is a very different organization. No 
spiritual qualifications were necessary to membership in 
that church, but a birth of flesh only, or even purchase 
with money was sufficient. My church is designed to 
make men holy ; hence, purity of heart and submission 
to My will are the means of entrance ; and, therefore, I 
tell you that, though a member of the Jewish church, of 
however great distinction, you must be born of water and 
of the Spirit, or into My kingdom or church you can not 
enter." Could language more clearly teach that the Jew- 
ish church was not the church which Jesus came to es- 
tablish ? 

On another occasion Jesus said: "Among those that 
are born of women there is not a greater prophet than 
John. the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of 
God is greater than he." Luke vii : 28. Though John 
was born of Jewish parentage, and filled with the Holy 
Spirit from birth, (Luke i : 15), a prophet, sent of God, 
(John i : 6), than whom there was not a greater, yet he 
that was least in the kingdom was greater than he. He 
lived and died out of the kingdom or church for which he 
prepared materials, because he died before it was estab- 



420 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

lished ; but had the Jewish church been the one for which 
he prepared material, there would have been none greater 
than he in it, for there was none greater born of women, 
and he was born in it. When the Pharisees and Saddu- 
cees came to John, demanding baptism of him, he said : 
" Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham 
to our father : for I say unto you, that God is able of 
these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matt. 
iii : 9. Does not this language imply that these Pharisees 
and Sadducees had set up peculiar claims on account of 
Abrahamic descent ? And truly their claims would have 
been just, had the theory under consideration been true. 
If the Jewish and Christian churches were the same, and 
persons are to be baptized because in the church, surely 
they were in the Jewish church ; were born members of it, 
and would have been entitled to baptism as such. Was 
it not, therefore, cruel in John to thus rebuke them ; even 
cruel as we when we refuse to baptize infants because in 
the church ? On one occasion Jesus said to the disciples : 
"Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye 
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt, xviii: 
3. Though the disciples of the Lord were selected from 
those prepared by John whose ministry was confined to 
the " lost sheep of the house of Israel," yet at the time 
Jesus used the language quoted they were not iirthe king- 
dom or church which Jesus came to establish, for the very 
good reason that it did not then exist. But with what 
propriety could Jesus have used such language had the 
Jewish church, in which they had lived all their lives, been 
the kingdom referred to? "Except ye become converted 
ye shall not enter a kingdom or church in which you have 
been all your lives." My blessed Lord never talked such 
nonsense. Other examples might be given, but these are 
deemed sufficient to show that those who were born and 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 42 I 

raised in the Jewish church, had nevertheless to enter the 
church of God or die out of it ; and this fact is conclu- 
sive proof that they can not be identical. Similar in some 
respects they were, but identical they can not be. 

But they are both called the church. Yes, but this 
proves not their identity, for different things are often 
called by the same name. How many' different organiza- 
tions are there now claiming to be the church ? Joshua 
was called Jesus, so was Christ ; yet they were not the 
same person. Joshua was called a Priest, so was Aaron, 
yet they were not the same person. Baalam was called 
a prophet, so were Elisha, Isaiah, John, Jesus, and many 
others, but still they were not identical ; so Stephen 
speaks of the church in the wilderness, and Paul speaks 
of the church of God at Corinth, yet this proves not that 
they spake of the same organization. The Greek word 
ekklesia, from which we have the word church, means called 
out ; hence, as God called the Jews out of bondage and. 
separated them from the Egyptians, they were called the 
church in the wilderness ; but they were not the church in 
our sense of this word. While there were some good 
people among them, yet, in the main, they were wicked, 
ungrateful, and idolatrous, lacking all the elements of 
character which should characterize the spiritual church 
of God. The word assembly, in Acts xix : 34, is from 
the same word, ekklesia, rendered church, and is used to 
designate a rabble that would have taken Paul's life. 
Hence, the mere occurrence of the word can not identify 
the same church. The word ekklesia is variously rendered 
church, congregation, assembly, etc. ; and we can only 
learn whether it is applied to a lawless mob, a political as- 
sembly, or a religious organization, from the context. 
Why, then, should the application of this word to the Jew- 



422 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ish nation prove it the church of God ? Surely it can 
not. 

But we are referred to the olive-tree, which is claimed 
to have been a figure of the Jewish church, into which the 
Gentiles were engrafted ; hence it is but the same church 
under both dispensations. As this is an important argu- 
ment, let us somewhat carefully examine it. Paul says : 
" For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy, so 
are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken 
off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in 
among them, and with them partakest of the root and fat- 
ness of the olive-tree ; boast not against the branches. 
But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root 
thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, 
that I might be graffed in. Well ; because of unbelief 
they were broken off; and thou standest by faith. Be not 
highminded, but fear ; for if God spared not the natural 
.branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. Behold there- 
fore the goodness and severity of God ; on them which 
fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue 
in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be 
graffed in : for God is able to graff them in again. For 
if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by 
nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good 
olive-tree ; how much more shall these, which be the nat- 
ural branches, be graffed into their own olive-tree?" Rom. 
xi : 16-24. 

In the first place, we remark that this passage says not 
a word about when the good olive-tree began, whether in 
the days of Abraham or on the day of Pentecost. In the 
next place, the natural and unnatural branches were sup- 
ported by the root, and alike had to be graffed in. In the 
next place, those broken off were broken off for unbelief, 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 423 

and those who stood, stood by faith. Infants can not ex- 
ercise faith, nor is it probable that they are rejected for 
unbelief; hence, it can not apply to them in any sense. 
And if this good olive-tree represents the church, it is 
certain that it can not represent the Jewish church, be- 
cause its branches stood by faith and were rejected for 
unbelief. Infants were in the Jewish church, hence the 
olive-tree could not represent it. The root, which gave 
support to all the members or branches, represents Christ. 
Isaiah says: "And in that day there shall be a root of 
Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people ; to it 
shall the Gentiles seek." Isa. xi : 10. Paul quotes this 
language in this same letter to the Romans as fulfilled in 
Christ. He says: "Esais saith, There shall be a root of 
Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles ; in 
him shall the Gentiles trust." Rom. xv : 12. The same 
thought is presented in the figure of the vine and its 
branches. Jesus says : " I am the true vine, and my Father 
is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth 
not fruit he taketh away : and every branch that beareth 
fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken 
unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch 
can not bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no 
more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye 
are the branches," John xv : 1-5. Jesus, as the prom- 
ised seed of Abraham in whom all nations were to be 
blessed, was the root of the good olive-tree or church es- 
tablished on the day of Pentecost among the Jews or 
natural descendants of Abraham, who very soon went 
back into Judaism and rejected the Messiah, and were 
thus broken off for their unbelief, and the Gentiles were 
brought in, and to-day stand by faith ; but the Jews arc 
not yet graffed in again, because they abide still in un- 



424 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

belief. But as all the members stand by faith, or fall by 
unbelief, infants are entirely out of the question. It can 
not embrace them. But we are referred to the language 
of James : "After this I will build again the tabernacle 
of David, which is fallen down ; and I will build again, the 
ruins thereof, and I will set it up." Acts xv : 16. It is 
assumed that the tabernacle of David here means the 
Jewish church. But what may we not prove by assump- 
tion ? Isaiah says: "And in mercy shall the throne be 
established : and he shall sit upon it in truth in the 
tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and 
hasting righteousness." Isa. xvi : 5. The throne of David 
was long unoccupied by any descendant of his, and it 
was predicted that that throne should be re-established in 
his family. Hence says Peter : " Therefore being a 
prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath 
to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the 
flesh, he would, raise up Christ to sit on his throne." 
Acts ii : 30. Thus the tabernacle of David was simply 
the family of David, from which Christ was raised up to 
sit upon his throne — Christ was the fruit of his loins, ac- 
cording to the flesh. It had no allusion to such a thing 
as the church of David. Did David have a church ? 
Mr. Robinson, a celebrated Pedobaptist Lexicographer, 
in defining the Greek word from which we have the word 
tabernacle in the above quotation, says : "Metaphorically, 
for the family, or royal line of David, fallen into weak- 
ness and decay." Louisville Debate, p. 78. 

It occurs to us that if the Jewish church and the Chris- 
tian church are the same, the Jews' religion and the 
Christian religion are the same. Paul was zealous in the 
Jews' religion while persecuting Christians. He says : 
"My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first 
among mine own nation at Jerusalem, knew all the Jews ; 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 425 

which knew me from the beginning, if they would tes- 
tify, that after the straitest sect of our religion I lived a 
Pharisee." Acts xxvi : 4, 5. And again : " For ye have 
heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' reli- 
gion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church 
of God, and wasted it : and profited in the Jews' religion 
above many my equals in mine own nation, being more 
exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." 
Gal. i : 13, 14. Once more: " I persecuted the church of 
God." 1 Cor. xv : 9. From these quotations it is evi- 
dent that the Jewish and Christian religions differed 
very widely. While Paul was a rigid adherent to the 
Jewish religion, he was a most fanatical persecutor of 
the Christian religion. Nor will it change the argument 
to admit that he was mistaken in his views of Christi- 
anity, for had he been imbued with the spirit of the Chris- 
tian religion he could not have given encouragement to 
the murder of Stephen, and the persecution of Christians, 
even granting them to have been wicked as he regarded 
them. The spirit which characterized him as a Jew, is 
not the spirit of Christianity at all. And while at this 
point, we would refer the reader to the sermon on the 
mount, where he may find a most wonderful and striking 
contrast- in the principles of the Jewish and Christian re- 
ligions. While one was a system of retaliation, sensual- 
ity, and revenge, the other is a system of love, mercy, 
good for evil, and self-denial. Can fruits so very differ- 
ent be the product of the same religion in the same 
church? Can the same fountain send forth bitter water 
and sweet ? Surely no two organizations could be more 
different ; and yet infant baptism derives its chief sup- 
port from their supposed identity. 

But we propose to show that there was no such thing 
as infant membership in the church in the days of the 



426 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

apostles. Paul says : " Those members of the body which 
seem to be more feeble are necessary." 1 Cor. xii: 22. 
Are infants the more feeble members ? If so, for what 
are they necessary? "That the members should have 
the same care one for another." Verse 25. What care 
has an infant for any one as a member of the church of 
God ? " And whether one member suffer, all the mem- 
bers suffer with it ; or one member be honored, all the 
members rejoice with it." Verse 26. All the members 
sympathize with each other in time of distress ; and re- 
joice in times of honor with the honored ones. They 
rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that 
weep. Infants can not do this, and as all did do it, there 
could have been no infants among them. We are aware 
that the word all must sometimes be understood in a 
limited sense, but we are not sure that it may be so un- 
stood here. The language seems to individualize the 
whole body. When one member suffers all the members 
suffer with it. When one member rejoices all rejoice. 

When Ananias and Sapphira were put to death, it is 
said that " Great fear came upon all the church." Acts 
v: n. Were the little infants alarmed lest some great 
calamity should come upon the church ? If not, none 
were in the church at that time, for such was the feeling 
of the church — all the church. 

When the difficulty arose concerning circumcision, and 
Paul and Barnabas placed the matter before the church 
at Jerusalem, it pleased " the apostles and elders, with 
the whole church, to send chosen men of their own 
company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas." Acts xv : 
22. We know that the church may do things without 
every member engaging in the work, but in such cases it 
could not be said that it pleased the whole church. 
When it is said that the whole church did a thing, we 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 427 

are inclined to think that every member, great and small, 
engaged in it. Infants could not take part in such a set- 
tlement as the one referred to, and as the whole church 
did take part in, and sanction what was done, it follows 
that there were no infants in the church. 

Paul gives us an instructive lesson on this subject : 
He says : " From whom the whole body fitly joined to- 
gether and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, 
according to the effectual working in the measure of every 
part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of it- 
self in love." Eph. iv : 16. Here we learn that the great 
business of the church is to edify itself and convert sin- 
ners, that it may increase the number of the saved in the 
body. And in order to do this, every joint must supply 
some assistance, that the whole body be engaged in the 
work. The apostle declares that there must be an effect- 
ual working in the measure of every part. We not only 
have the whole body here engaged, but every part is effect- 
ually working. Can infants effectually work for the salva- 
tion of men and the edification of the church ? If not, they 
have no place in it. 

Peter says : " Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a 
spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." I Pet. ii : 
5. The church is not made of dead, inactive material, but 
of active, lively members who can work in God's building. 
They are spiritual priests, whose business it is to offer 
spiritual sacrifices — not mere lumps of flesh, without any 
spirituality connected with them. Can infants be thus ac- 
tively engaged as lively stones in this great spiritual tem- 
ple ? If not, they have no place in it. There is no func- 
tion belonging to the body which they can perform, 
unless it be to weep with them that weep. They do not 
know the Lord, and hence can not make spiritual sacri- 



428 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

fices to Him, and, therefore, have no place in the church 
of God on the earth. 

We come now to examine the argument based upon the 
assumption that baptism came in the room of circum- 
cision, and as infants were circumcised in the Jewish 
church they must now be baptized. Though in former 
days this was regarded as the chief argument supporting 
the practice, it has become about obsolete. Watson, in his 
" Institutes," makes it his strongest argument, and so did 
Rice, Hughey, and other debators ; yet Mr. Ditzler says 
they were all wrong — that baptism did not come in the 
room of circumcision, and that the argument drawn from 
that source must be abandoned. He, though the recog- 
nized champion in Pedobaptist ranks, makes no argument 
based upon that hypothesis in support of his practice. 
Is not this significant ? When a practice is to be sup- 
ported for a time from one stand-point, and when driven 
from it, positions are shifted, and the same practice sup- 
ported from other considerations, equally doubtful, we are 
inclined to regard it as of doubtful authority, and hard to 
defend, to say the least of it. 

But why shall we consume time in the examination of 
an obsolete argument ? Because it still has a place in the 
standard works and text-books of the various parties who 
practice infant baptism, and some may still be inclined to 
regard it as important, for long cherished arguments are 
usually abandoned reluctantly, But as this argument 
has its root in the doctrine of the identity of the Jewish 
and Christian churches, it necessarily falls with that the- 
ory. We will, however, present some additional argu- 
ments, designed to show that baptism did not come in the 
room of circumcision. 

i. Circumcision was confined to the Jews, and those 



WHO SHOULD BE B VPTIZED ? 429 

purchased with money by them ; baptism is for all na- 
tions. 

2. Circumcision was to be perfo -med on native Jews at 
eight days old ; baptism is for any age capable of believ- 
ing the gospel. 

3. Circumcision was confined to males' only ; baptism 
is for men and women. If baptism came in the room of 
circumcision, why baptize females ? 

4. Circumcision applied to those bought with money ; 
baptism, has no such application. No Christian man 
thinks of baptizing a servant, siirply because of pur- 
chase ; but why not, if baptism came in the room of Cir- 
cumcision ? 

5. No faith was required as a qualification for circum- 
cision ; but believers only are baptfred. When the 
eunuch demanded baptism of Philip, the answer was : 
" If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest," 
clearly implying that if he did not believe, he should not 
be baptized. 

6. Circumcision was not an initiatory ordinance, but 
was for such as were already members of the Jewish fam- 
ily ; and if not circumcised he was to be cut off from his 
people. Gen. xvii : 14. Baptism, properly administered, 
admits or introduces the subject into the kingdom of 
God ; (John iii : 5) therefore, baptism did not come in the 
room of circumcision. 

7. Circumcision showed a man to be a Jew ; baptism 
shows a man to be neither a Jew nor a Gentile, but a 
Christian only. 

8. Baptism is administered in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit. Circumcision was not thus admin- 
istered. 

9. Baptism is administered to show the burial and res- 
urrection of Christ. Circumcision was not administered 



430 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

for this purpose, because these events had not transpired 
when it was instituted, nor for many hundred years after- 
ward. 

10. Circumcision placed a man under obligations to do 
the whole law ; baptism frees us from bondage, and puts 
no one under the law of Moses ; hence it came not in the 
room of circumcision. 

n. Baptism is administered for the remission of sins 
(Acts ii : 38) ; circumcision had no such object. 

12. Baptism is for the answer of a good conscience 
(1 Peter iii : 21) ; circumcision had nothing to do with the 
conscience, but pertained wholly to the flesh. 

13. Those baptized went on their way rejoicing (Acts 
viii : 39 ; xvi : 34); we imagine that those who were circum- 
cised were usually taken away crying. Therefore they 
were not much alike. 

14. Circumcision was obedience to the law of Moses 
(John vii : 23) ; baptism is obedience to the gospel of Jesus 
Christ. 

15. No one can be a scriptural subject of baptism who is 
not first taught the gospel ; but many were circumcised 
before they were old enough to be taught any thing. 

16. The gift of the Holy Spirit was promised to those 
baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii : 38) ; this gift 
was never promised to any for being circumcised, or, as 
following it. 

This list of distinctions might be extended much fur- 
ther, but these are enough to show, to every reflecting 
mind, that there is not a shadow of resemblance in bap- 
tism to circumcision, and that one came not in the room 
of the other. But there arose a difficulty in the church 
in the days of the apostles concerning circumcision, which 
it seems to us would have been a good time to have settled 
this whole question. " Certain men which came down 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 43 1 

from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be 
circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye can not be 
saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small 
dissension and disputation with them, they determined 
that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should 
go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this 
question. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they 
were received of the church, and of the apostles and el- 
ders, and they declared all things that God had done with 
them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Phar- 
isees which believed, saying, That it was needful to cir- 
cumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of 
Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for 
to consider of this matter." Acts xv : 1-6. Had the 
apostles only thought of the fact that circumcision had 
given place to baptism, which had taken its place, they 
would have answered something after the following style : 
"Brethren, there need be no difficulty about circumcision, 
for baptism has come in its place, and hence you need 
only now be baptized, and have your children baptized", in 
place of having them circumcised, as under the law." 
Would not such an answer have been most natural under 
the circumstances? Did they so answer? Peter said: 
" Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of 
the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able 
to bear ? " Verse 10. But he said not a word about bap- 
tism in room of circumcision. After due deliberation 
these inspired teachers wrote an answer as follows: "The 
apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the 
brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, 
and Cilicia : Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain 
which went out from us have troubled you with words, 
subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, 
and keep the law ; to whom we gave no such command- 



432 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ment ; it seemed good to us, being assembled with one 
accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved 
Barnabas and Paul. * * * For it seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than 
these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered 
to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and 
from fornication ; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye 
shall do well. Fare ye well." Verses 23-29. Now, be it 
observed that this letter was written by the apostles and 
elders, from the church at Jerusalem, who had duly con- 
sidered the question of circumcision, and it was approved 
by the Holy Spirit ; and yet it contains not a word about 
baptism coming in the room of circumcision ; and circum- 
cision was the very thing about which the difficulty arose! 
Would a Pedobaptist council now write thus ? Would 
they not more probably write something after the follow- 
ing style : " Brethren, you need not now be circumcised, 
for baptism has taken its place. If you, therefore, have 
your children baptized and abstain from circumcision, you 
shall do well ?" Paul labors this question at great length 
in his letter to the Galatians, who were inclined to go back 
to the law. He says : " Stand fast therefore in the liberty 
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled 
again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto 
you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you noth- 
ing ; for I testify again to every man that is circumcised, 
thaT he is'a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become 
of no effect unto you. Whosoever of you are justified by 
the law, ye are fallen from grace. For we through the 
Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith ; for in 
Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor 
uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love." Gal. v: 
1-6. Is it not strange that, while Paul was making this 
argument to keep his brethren from being circumcised, he 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 433 

never once thought of the fact that baptism came in the 
room of circumcision ? Had he informed them of this 
fact it would have settled the question forever. But he 
could think of every other argument except this, the most 
important of all. He told them it was a yoke of bondage, 
from which to keep themselves free ; that if circumcised 
they would have to keep the whole law ; that they would 
lose all their hopes of salvation through Christ ; that they 
would fall from grace ; that in Christ circumcision could 
not avail them any thing ; all this, but never once said, 
," Brethren, you need not be circumcised, for baptism has 
taken its place." Why did he not think of it ? Will the 
reader think of it ? 

But we insist that baptism did not come in the room of 
circumcision from another consideration : both were in 
force, under the same covenant, among the same people, 
at the same time. We have seen that circumcision was 
instituted in the family of Abraham for the Jewish nation, 
and that the covenant to which it belonged was not taken 
out of the way until the death of Christ ; hence it was in 
force up to the time of His death. John's ministry was 
confined to the Jews, and ended before Christ began to 
preach. See Matt, iv : 12-17. Then, John's ministry 
began and ended during the existence of the covenant of 
circumcision ; and his baptism and Jewish circumcision 
were both binding among the same people at the same 
time — with this difference only : infants were circumcised 
at eight days old ; those only were baptized who had sinned 
and were willing to confess and forsake their sins. As 
circumcision and John's baptism were both in force at the 
same time, under the same covenant, among the same 
people, how could one be in the place of the other ? 

Again : If baptism came in the room of circumcision, 
why was it necessary for Jews who had been circumcised 
37 



434 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

to still be baptized ? We have stated that John's ministry 
was confined to the Jews who had been circumcised, and 
yet he baptized vast numbers of them. The Pharisees 
were the straitest sect of the Jews, and were so zealous for 
the law of circumcision that they even wanted to bind it 
upon Gentiles after conversion to Christianity, and yet the 
" Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against 
themselves, being not baptized of him." Luke vii : 30. It 
may be that they made their objection to John's baptism 
because they had been circumcised ; we suppose not ; but 
whether they did or did not, one thing is certain ; namely, 
it was the counsel of God that they should be baptized 
notwithstanding their circumcision. On the day of Pen- 
tecost the gospel was preached to Jews, who were com- 
manded to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus 
Christ, and three thousand of them were baptized, though, 
as Jews, they had all been circumcised. And Paul was a 
Pharisee, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught 
according to the perfect manner of the law touching which 
he was blameless ; yet, under special instructions from the 
Lord, Ananias commanded him to " be baptized and wash 
away his sins." Acts xxii: 16. Might he not have expos- 
tulated with the man of God thus : " Sir, I am a Jew, and 
have been circumcised ; and as baptism came in the room 
of circumcision, however important it may be to a Gentile, 
it can not be obligatory on me, as I have complied with 
the rite in the room of which it came, and for which it is 
a substitute ? Why should I submit to the substitute, hav- 
ing received the original?" Surely, such a plea would have 
been in harmony with the theory. But, as no such plea was 
made by any Jew, but every one of them converted to the 
faith of the gospel had to be baptized notwithstanding 
his circumcision, we conclude that circumcision passed 
away with the old ccvenant, of which it was a part, and 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 435 

that baptism has no connection with it whatever. In- 
deed, as circumcision belonged to the old covenant which 
has passed away, baptism can not be in the place of cir- 
cumcision, for it has no place. The covenant in which it 
had a place being gone, it would be quite as sensible to 
speak of a man having a place in a house which had been 
burned to ashes. A place in the house he may have had 
when it was a house, but when it ceased to exist he could 
no longer have a place in it. So, when the covenant to 
which circumcision belonged passed away its place passed 
away, and it is idle to talk of any thing coming in and 
filling its place. It has no place only in Jewish history. 

But it is said that circumcision was a seal of the Jewish 
covenant, and that baptism is the seal of the new covenant, 
hence one is in the place of the other — i. e., baptism sus- 
tains the same relationship to the new covenant which cir- 
cumcision sustained to the old. Well, let us examine this 
theory. And, first, the reader will note the fact that this 
argument — or, rather, theory — abandons the whole doctrine 
of church identity based upon an identity of the covenants. 
Waving this, however, we will examine the theory upon its 
merits. God said : "And ye shall circumcise the flesh of 
your foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the covenant be- 
twixt me and you." Gen. xvii : n. Here we find circum- 
cision called a token, but not a seal of the covenant. Paul 
says Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
the.righteousness of the faith which he had yet being un- 
circumcised ; that he might be the father of all them that 
believe, though they be not circumcised." Rom. iv : u. 
Here circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of Abra- 
ham's faith, not a seal of the covenant. And circumcision 
was to Abraham what it was to no other Jew. It was a 
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had before 
he was circumcised. How much faith could a Jewish 



436 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

infant have before it was eight days old ? Of course, none 
at all ; and, hence, circumcision could not seal the right- 
eousness of the faith of those who had no faith. 

But is baptism the seal of the new covenant? If so, 
where is the scripture which proves or teaches it ? As to the 
covenant itself, it came nearer being sealed by the blood 
of Jesus Christ than by baptism ; and the subjects are 
sealed by the Holy Spirit. Paul says : " In whom ye also 
trusted after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel 
of your salvation ; in whom also, after that ye believed, ye 
were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." Eph. i: 13. 
And again : " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby 
ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Eph. iv: 30. 
Thus we see that persons converted to God under the 
new covenant are sealed with the Holy Spirit, and not by 
baptism ; nor is it even once called the seal, or a seal in 
all the book of God. Hence, if any thing sustains the 
same relation to the new' covenant which circumcision did 
to the old, as taught by Pedobaptists, it is the Holy Spirit. 
Thus, were we to grant that circumcision was the seal of 
the Jewish covenant — or, rather, were it true — it would 
only be another evidence that baptism did not come in its 
place, for baptism is not a seal, nor is it anywhere called 
one. It comes much nearer performing, under the new 
covenant, the office which the natural birth did to a Jew 
under the old. Natural birth introduced a Jew into the 
Jewish commonwealth, or so-called church, and a birth, of 
water and Spirit introduces men and women into the king- 
dom or church of God. Hence, there is some analogy 
between the natural birth of a Jew and the new birth 
which makes a man a child of God or a Christian, but 
none whatever between baptism and Jewish circumcision. 

But suppose we admit, for a moment, that circumcision 
was the seal of the Jewish covenant, and that it is still in 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 437 

force, the seal being changed to baptism, then it follows 
that every Jew who is baptized is twice sealed in the same 
covenant — once with the sign of circumcision and once in 
baptism. Hence, if circumcision and baptism may be, and 
were administered to the same subject under the same 
covenant, why will not Pedobaptists rebaptize those who 
become dissatisfied with a baptism received in infancy? 
If the same persons may be twice sealed in the same cov- 
enant — once by circumcision, and again by baptism after 
it became a substitute for the former, then we see not 
why others may not be twice sealed by baptism upon the 
same principle. If they may receive the original and then 
the substitute, why not twice receive the substitute? 
Those who can, may explain ; we can not. 

We close our examination of the covenants with Paul's 
allegory. He says : " Tell me, ye that desire to be under 
the law, do ye not hear the law ? For it is written, that 
Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid and the 
other by a free woman. But he that was of cne bond- 
woman was born after the flesh ; but he of the free woman 
was by promise ; which things are an allegory ; for these 
are the two covenants ; for this Agar is mount Sinai in 
Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is and is 
in bondage with her children, but Jerusalem which is 
above is free, which is thge mother of us all. For it is 
written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not ; break forth 
and cry, thou that travaileth not : for the desolate hath 
many more children than she which hath a husband. 
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of prom- 
ise. But as then he that was born after the flesh perse- 
cuted him that was born after the Spirit, even as it is now. 
Nevertheless what saith the scripture ? Cast out the 
bond-woman and her son : for the son of the bond-woman 
shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So, then, 



43^ THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the 
free." Gal. iv: 21-31. In this allegory, Abraham's bond- 
woman Hagar represents the covenant made at Sinai, and 
his lawful wife Sarah represents the new covenant, of which 
Jesus Christ is the mediator. Each of these women had 
a son by Abraham. Hagar's son was born after the flesh ; 
Sarah's son Isaac was given her by promise when she was 
past age. The question arose whether the child of the 
bond- woman should inherit Abraham's estate equal with 
the son of the free. God decided that he should not be 
heir with the son of the free woman, and ordered the 
bond-woman and her son to be cast out. Paul uses this 
circumstance to illustrate the two covenants. As the 
Sinaitic covenant required no spiritual qualifications for 
membership but a birth of flesh only, it was fitly repre- 
sented by the woman whose son was born according to 
the flesh, and was rejected. But as the new covenant re- 
quired spiritual qualifications for membership, and con- 
ferred spiritual blessings upon the subjects of it through 
Christ, it was fitly represented by the lawful wife, whose 
son Isaac was the child of promise and the seed of Abra- 
ham, from whom Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, 
should come. And Paul says we, as Isaac was, are the 
children of promise ; not children of the bond-woman, but 
of the free. As the free woman represented the new cov- 
enant, and we are children of the free woman, it follows 
that we are children of the new covenant represented by 
the free woman, whose children we are. And as God com- 
manded to cast out the bond-woman and her son, which 
represented the old covenant and its membership, it fol- 
lows that no one can inherit the spiritual privileges of the 
new covenant as a subject of the one which has waxed 
Id and been cast out with its membership. 
Nor will it do to assume that this bond-woman simply 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 439 

represented the covenant made at Sinai, but did not include 
the covenant made with Abraham, for we have already 
seen that the covenant made with Abraham was renewed 
with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses (see Deut. xxix : 19); and 
even the covenant of circumcision originally given to Abra- 
ham was incorporated in and became part of the law of 
Moses. Jesus says : " If a man on the sabbath day receive 
circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken ; 
are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit 
whole on the sabbath day?" John vii: 23. Then, as cir- 
cumcision, which Pedobaptists tell us was the seal of the 
Abrahamic covenant, became part of the law of Moses or 
covenant made at Sinai, surely the covenant did also, for 
the seal would not have been transferred without the cov- 
enant to which it belonged. Then, as these were merged 
into the covenant made at Sinai, which was represented 
by the bond-woman and her son who were cast out, it fol- 
lows that that covenant and the Jewish church based upon 
it, with its membership, are gone, forever gone. " So, then, 
brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of 
the free," thank God. 

We come now to examine the argument based upon 
Jewish proselyte baptism. It is assumed that the. Jews, 
from the days of Jacob until now, have baptized female 
proselytes, and both baptized and circumcised male prose- 
lytes ; and when they baptized parents they also baptized 
their children. The theory appears to be somewhat incon- 
sistent, to say the least of it. Both circumcision and bap- 
tism practiced at the same time, among the same people, 
upon the same subjects, under the same covenant, and yet 
one came in the room of the other ! Really, if both were 
in existence from the days of Jacob until the coming of the 
Messiah, it would seem that if He did any thing with them 
He rather consolidated them than substituted one for the 



440 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

other. Among the Jews, it seems that each is in its own 
place, for if both were practiced under the old covenant, 
each had a place ; and as both are practiced now, we sup- 
pose they have not changed places yet. But as Pedobap- 
tists admit that circumcision has passed away, but contend 
that baptism has taken its place, we feel a little curious to 
know what place it filled under the old covenant when 
circumcision was in its own place. If baptism is the seal 
under the new covenant, what office did it fill in the old 
covenant when circumcision was the seal ? Leaving those 
who advocate the theories to harmonize, them at their 
leisure, we propose to examine the testimony concerning 
the baptism of Jewish proselytes, and see whether or not 
it was practiced from the days of Jacob, or even before 
the days of John the Baptist. And we will first hear what 
eminent Pedobaptists, who have given the subject a careful 
and thorough examination, say about it : 

i. "Part of John's office consisted in baptizing — an ex- 
ternal rite, then in a particular manner appointed of God, 
and not used before!' Venema, in Booth Abridged, p. 161. 

2. When speaking of John the Baptist and his ministry, 
Gerhardus asks : " Who would have embraced that new 
and hitherto unusual ceremony, baptism, without sufficient 
previous information." Gerhardus, in Booth Abridged, 
p. 161. 

3. " Why, then, baptizest thou? Hence, it appears the 
Jews were not ignorant that there should be some altera- 
tion in the rites of religion under the Messiah, which they 
might easily learn from Jer. xxxi. John most pertinently 
answers, professing that he was not the author, but only the 
administrator of this new rite!' Beza, in Booth Abridged, 
p. 161. 

4. "The baptism of proselytes, in our opinion, seems to 
have been received by the Jews after the time of John the 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 44I 

Baptist, being very much influenced by his authority, and 
greatly admiring him. Certainly, it can not be proved by 
any substantial testimony, that it was in use among the 
Jews before the time of John." Deylingius, in Booth, 
p. 162. 

5. " In fine, we are destitute of any early testimony to 
the practice of proselyte baptism antecedently to the Chris- 
tian era. The original institution of admitting Jews to 
the covenant, and strangers to the same, prescribed no 
other rite than that of circumcision. No account of any 
other is found in the Old Testament ; none in the Apoc- 
rypha, New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, 
Joseph the Blind, or in the work of any other Targumist, 
excepting Pseudo-Jonathan, whose work belongs to the 
seventh or eighth centuries. No evidence is found in 
Philo, Josephus, or any of the earlier Christian writers. 
How could an allusion to such a rite have escaped them 
all if it were as common and as much required by usage as 
circumcision ?" Stuart on Baptism, p. 140. 

Again he says : " Be this as it may, or be the origin of 
proselyte baptism as it may, I can not see that there is any 
adequate evidence for believing that it existed contem- 
porarily with the baptism of John and of Jesus. But 
what has all this to do with the question, What was the 
ancient mode of baptism ? Much ; for it is on all hands 
conceded that, so far as the testimony of the Rabbis can 
decide such a point, the baptism of proselytes among the 
Jews was by immersion. * * * It is, therefore, a matter of 
no little interest, so far as our question is concerned, to 
inquire whether Christian baptism had its origin from the 
proselyte baptism of the Jews. This we have done, and 
have come to this result, viz.: that there is no certainty 
that such was the case, but that the probability, on the 
ground of evidence, is strong against it." Ibid, p. 142. 



442 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

6. "But independently of its supposed scriptural sanc- 
tion, an attempt has been made to prove this usage in the 
apostolic age, upon the alleged fact that the Jews then bap- 
tized proselytes from heathenism. Now, this alleged fact 
of the baptism of proselytes is very uncertain, and, even if 
admitted, would by no means establish the apostolic usage 
of infant baptism. The baptism of proselytes is first men- 
tioned in the Mishna, a collection of Jewish traditions, 
completed in the third century [A. D. 219]; and the usage 
there mentioned (baptism of adults and infants) might 
have been derived, directly or indirectly, from Christians." 
Dr. Blunt, in Louisville Debate, p. 105. 

With regard to the silence of Josephus on the subject, 
Dr. Blunt very justly remarks : " But- whether this sup- 
posed Jewish usage existed at all (among Jews or Chris- 
tians) in the apostolic age is uncertain. It is not men- 
tioned by Josephus, even when we might fairly expect that 
it would have been recorded — as when he relates that the 
Idumeans were received among the Jewish people by cir- 
cumcision, without mentioning baptism. Were the usage 
undoubted, it would only have been an unauthorized addi- 
tion to the scriptural command, since it was by circum- 
cision only that proselytes were to be added to the Jewish 
Church. Ex. xii : 48." Ut supra. 

On this subject Prof. Stuart says : " Nay, there is one 
passage in Josephus which seems to afford strong ground 
of suspicion that the rite in question was unknown at a 
period not long antecedent to the time of the apostles. 
This author is relating the history of John Hyrcanus, high 
priest and king of the Jews, a zealous Pharisee, and one 
who, according to Josephus, was favored with divine reve- 
lations. He says that Hyrcanus took certain cities from 
the Idumeans ; 'And he commanded, after subduing all 
the Idumeans, that they should remain in their country if 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 443 

they would circumcise themselves and conform to the Jew- 
ish customs. Then they, through love of their country, 
underwent circumcision, and submitted to other modes of 
living which were Jewish ; and from that time they became 
Jews.' Ant. xiii : 9. 1." Stuart on Baptism, p. 129. 

Now, is it not a little strange that Josephus should men- 
tion the circumcision of persons who became Jews, and say 
not one word about their baptism, when, if the Jews both 
circumcised and baptized their proselytes, they must have 
baptized these very persons which he speaks of being cir- 
cumcised? 

But we are not done with the testimony of Dr. Blunt 
yet. He says : " It is, however, very unlikely that the Jews 
would adopt the usage of baptism from the Christians ; and 
the Mishna being founded on' previous collections reaching 
to the apostolic age, there is just a probability that at the 
time of our Lord and His apostles the Jewish custom pre- 
vailed of baptizing proselytes and their children. Even 
admitting this, yet before this custom can be alleged in 
proof or confirmation of apostolic usage, it must be proved 
that the Jewish custom was adopted by our Lord and His 
apostles ; but of this neither the Scriptures nor the early 
fathers offered any proof whatever. Besides, it should be 
considered that the baptism of proselytes widely differs in 
theory from the Christian doctrine of baptism. The con- 
vert to Judaism was baptized, and all his family then born ; 
but if he had children born afterward, they were not bap- 
tized, the previous baptism of their parents being deemed 
sufficient." Blunt, in Louisville Debate, p. 105. 

Thus testify Pedobaptists themselves on the whole 
question of Jewish proselyte baptism ; and so far from 
tracing it back to the days of Jacob, it goes back to some- 
time in the third century, when even the church, to say 
nothing of Judaism, was full of heresy and corruption. 



444 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

From that time it has been practiced as claimed by Pedo- 
baptists, but all behind that is doubt and speculation. 

But Dr. Robinson says : " Purifications of proselytes in- 
deed there were, but there never was any such ceremony 
as baptism in practice before the time of John. If such a 
rite had existed, the regular priests, and not John, would 
have administered it, and there would have been no need 
of a new and extraordinary appointment from heaven to 
give being to an old established custom ; nor would it 
have been decent for John, or any other man, to treat 
native Jews — especially Jesus, who had no paganism to put 
away — as pagan proselytes were treated. This uninterest- 
ing subject hath produced voluminous disputes, which may 
be fairly cut short by demanding at the outset substantial 
proof of the fact that the Jews baptized proselytes before 
the time of John — which can never be done." Robinson, 
in Louisville Debate, p. 104. 

Again, the same author says : " The modest Dr. Benson 
was pleased to add that he wished to see all these diffi- 
culties cleared up, and that he could not answer all 
that Dr. Wall and Mr. Emlyn had said in support of pros- 
elyte baptism ; but, with all possible deference to this most 
excellent critic, it may be truly said he hath, by stating his 
difficulties, fully answered both these writers ; for what 
they call proselyte baptism was not baptism, and if there 
was 110 institution of such a washing as they call baptism 
in the Old Testament, and no mention of such a thing in 
the Apocrypha, or in Josephus, or in Philo, what, at this 
age of the world, signify the conjectures of a Lightfoot, 
and a Wall, or even an Emlyn ?" 

On the subject of Jewish washings, which some have 
been inclined to call baptism, he says : "A fact it is, be- 
yond all contradiction, that this same proselyte washing, 
which learned men have thought fit to call baptism, is no 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 445 

baptism at all, but, as Dr. Benson truly says, a very differ- 
ent thing, and that in which infants could have no share. 
It was a person's washing himself, and not the dipping of 
one person by another." Robinson, in Louisville Debate, 
p. 104. 

We could well afford to rest the argument with the au- 
thors quoted, but at the risk of being tedious we will offer 
a few thoughts for the consideration of the reader not sug- 
gested in the foregoing quotations. 

These authors concede that the Bible furnishes not a 
trace of authority for the baptism of proselytes by the 
Jews, nor any account of a single example of it. Surely, 
then, divine authority can not be claimed for it ; hence, it 
can furnish no authority for the baptism of infants, though 
we were to grant that it had .been practiced from the days 
of Adam. If the practice began with man, without divine 
sanction, how can it furnish authority for any thing ? Are 
we to conclude that the Lord borrowed the idea of baptism 
from the unauthorized practice of men when He sent John 
to baptize the people ? When Jesus asked the people 
whether the baptism of John was from heaven or of men, 
they might have promptly answered that it was of men if 
it had come from the unauthorized practice of men. And 
it dare not be assumed that God authorized the practice. 
Let him that so assumes produce the passage of Holy Writ 
that proves it. God instituted circumcision, and we can find 
an account of it, and a record of cases under the law ; why 
can we not do the same as to the baptism of Jewish pros- 
elytes ? When a stranger would keep the passover among 
the Jews, God gave the law for it. " When a stranger 
shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the 
Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him 
come near and keep it ; and he shah be as one that is born 
in the land ; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 



446 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the 
stranger that sojourneth among you." Ex. xii : 48, 49. Is 
it not strange that the Lord did not say : " Let all his 
males be circumcised, and his males and females be bap- 
tized, and then let him come near and keep it ?" Surely, 
it would have been a good time to make the suggestion. 
But it is not contended that native Jews were to be bap- 
tized, but only proselytes ; and here the Lord says one law 
shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger ; 
hence, as the home-born were only circumcised, it follows 
that nothing more was required of strangers, at least to 
prepare for eating the passover, and we suppose when any 
one could eat the passover he was in full fellowship. We 
regard this as settling the question as far as authority is 
concerned. 

But if further proof be desirable, it may be found in the 
official title of John the Baptist. If others had been bap- 
tizing since the days of Jacob, why call John the Baptist? 
A baptist he might have been, but the Baptist he could 
not have been, for the Jewish priests would have been 
baptists as well as John. Indeed, it would not have re- 
quired a special appointment from God to authorize John 
to do that which any Jewish priest could do, and had been 
doing, for ages. 

Is it not a little strange that the Lord should give a 
commission to the apostles to baptize the nations, and yet 
leave those who are to submit to it to eliminate their duty 
from Jewish talmuds and targums in place of from His 
law ? On this subject we wish to give the reader the ben- 
efit of a paragraph from the illustrious Booth. He says : 
" If, therefore, we obtain the useful intelligence about it, 
so as to help us in settling who are the subjects of our 
Sovereign's appointment, it must be by having recourse to 
the Jewish synagogue. Now, is it not far more probable 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 447 

that Christ intended his own commission for the observ- 
ance of baptism as the only law of administration, and the 
practice of His apostles as the only example for His people 
to follow, than that He should leave either its mode or 
subjects to be learned from the traditions of an apostate 
people, or the records of their admired but impious tal- 
muds ? Can it be imagined that our Lord should appoint 
baptism for all his disciples ; that He should give them a 
body of doctrine and a code of law in the New Testament ; 
and, after all, tacitly refer them to the writings of His 
enemies ; those writings which are the register of their 
own pridej and madness, and shame ; writings, too, of 
which perhaps a great majority of Christians never heard, 
nor had in their power to read, in order to learn wJwm He 
intended to be baptized f .Booth Abridged, p. 1 66. 

All the premises considered, it is quite apparent that 
there was no such thing as the baptism of Jewish prose- 
lytes until long after the introduction of Christianity, from 
which the practice was borrowed by the Jews. If any one 
thinks he can find an example of Jewish proselyte baptism 
earlier than two hundred years after John began to bap- 
tize, let him name the case, tell who he was, where it was 
done, and by whom. All this we can do as to John's bap- 
tism and Christian baptism from their introduction ; why 
may it not be done with reference to the baptism of Jew- 
ish proselytes, if indeed they were baptized at all? As 
neither command nor example can be produced antedating 
Christianity, we conclude there was no such practice, and 
dismiss the subject with the question, upon which the 
reader may reflect at his leisure, whether it is more likely 
that the Lord borrowed the idea of baptism from an un- 
authorized Jewish custom, or whether the Jews borrowed 
the practice from John and primitive Christians? 

We congratulate the reader upon his escape from Jewish 



44^ THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

covenants, talmuds, targums, and antiquated rites and cere- 
monies, and take much pleasure in introducing him to the 
New Testament, where we may at least find the word 
baptism, baptize, baptist, or some word akin to the sub- 
ject under examination. Baptism is confessedly a New 
Testament ordinance, ?.nd why we should go to Jewish 
commands, talmuds, targums, any where and every where 
save the New Testament, to examine a question of purely 
New Testament origin, is, to say the least, a little strange. 
As we are in the negative of the question, we must go 
where others lead , but if the practice of infant baptism 
were clearly taugV.t in the New Testament, it is likely we 
should be spared the trouble of looking for it elsewhere. 

As John was the first to baptize the people, it may be 
well to see wbsther or not he baptized any infants. The 
record says : u Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all 
Judea, and ill the region round about Jordan, and were 
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Matt. 
iii : 5, 6. * John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach 
the baptise of repentance for the remission of sins. And 
there wait out unto him all the land of Judea, and they 
of Jen:r>/.lem, and were all baptized of him in the river of 
Jordat, confessing their sins." Mark i : 4, 5. " And he 
came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the 
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke 
iii: 3. 

These quotations are deemed sufficient to give us a 
pictty clear view of John's baptism, so far as the present 
inquiry is concerned. They show us, with great clearness, 
that John's baptism was for the remission of sins ; infants 
have no sins to be remitted, hence it was not for them. 
Nor could it have been the guilt of original sin, for the 
removal of which John baptized the people — i. e., the dear 
babes ; for then it must have been, not for the remission of 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 449 

sins, but for the remission of a .tz/j— -Adam's sin. And the 
scriptures quoted show that the people were all baptized 
by John in Jordan, confessing their sins, not Adam's sin ; 
hence, it was for the remission of the sins of the people 
that they were baptized. Again : These persons were not 
only baptized for the remission of sins, but they confessed 
their sins. This infants could not do, hence there were 
no infants baptized by John. Paul says: "John verily 
baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the 
people that they should believe on him which should come 
after him ; that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts xix : 4. Thus 
we see that faith in a coming Saviour was enjoined by 
John upon those he baptized. Infants could not have ap- 
preciated such preaching or exercised such faith, therefore 
they were not subjects of John's ministry. Finally : John 
preached the baptism of repentance ; that is, it was a bap- 
tism which belonged to and grew out of repentance ; in- 
fants can not repent, therefore the baptism of repentance 
was not for them. Collating these items, then, we find 
that John preached — the people heard, believed, repented, 
confessed their sins, and were baptized by John for the 
remission of them. Infants were not competent to do 
these things, hence they were not the subjects of John's 
preaching or baptism. 

We come now to an examination of the commission 
given by the Lord, a record of which we have by Matthew 
in the following words : " All power is given unto me in 
heaven and in earth ; go ye, therefore, and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and. of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt, 
xxviii : 18-20. 

This is truly an important text and well deserves our 
most serious consideration. John's mission was confined 
3« 



450 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

to the Jews, and so was that of the twelve and the seventy 
prior to the death of Jesus ; now He claims all authority 
in heaven and on earth, and for the first time authorizes 
the baptism of the Gentiles. His language, then, must be 
regarded as the organic law of this divine institution^ and 
not as a merely incidental allusion to the subject. It not 
only furnishes authority for baptizing all nations, but gives 
the only formula contained in Holy Writ in which the 
sacred rite is to be administered. The word teach occurs 
twice in the passage, and is from different Greek words, a 
circumstance which has given rise to much speculation on 
the subject to very little profit. It is insisted that mat he- 
tusate, rendered teaching, means to make disciples ; and 
suppose it does. What is a disciple? A student, or 
learner; and could there be such a thing as a student 
without teaching? Where there is a student there must 
be something to study. Hence, the obvious import of the 
passage is, teach first the elementary principles of the gos- 
pel, so that the people may believe in Jesus as the Son of 
God and Saviour of man ; then baptize them into the sacred 
names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; then further teach 
them how to live the Christian life. 

Mr. Baxter says : "Go disciple me all nations, baptizing 
them. As for those who say they are discipled by baptiz- 
ing, and not before baptizing, they speak not the sense of 
that text, or that which is true or rational, if they mean it 
absolutely as so spoken ; else why should one be bap- 
tized more than another ? This is not a mere occasional 
or historical mention of baptism, but it is the very com- 
mission of Christ to His apostles for preaching and bap- 
tizing, and purposely expresseth their several works in 
their several places and order. Their first task is, by 
teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called be- 
lievers. The second work is, to baptize them, whereto is 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 45 1 

annexed the promise of their salvation. The third work is 
to teach them all other things which are afterward to be 
learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order is 
to renounce all rules of order, for where can we expect to 
find it if not here ?" Booth Abridged, p. 202. 

Brugonsis says: "Christ commanded first to teach the 
nations that are strangers to God and the truth ; after- 
ward, when they have submitted to the truth, to teach 
them those precepts and rules of life which are worthy of 
God and the truth. The order here observed, says Jerome, 
is excellent. He commands the apostles first to teach all na- 
tions ; then to dip them with the sacrament of faith ; and 
tJien to show them how they should behave themselves after 
their faith and baptism. Before baptism, they are to be 
taught the truth of the gospel, especially matters of faith ; 
after baptism, they are to be instructed in the Christian mor- 
als, and what concerns their practice." Booth Abridged, 
pp. 203, 204. • 

These statements made by Pedobaptists we will regard 
as so obviously correct that further comment is unneces- 
sary ; we will regard this as the settled meaning of the 
text and make our deductions accordingly. 

It is claimed that, as infants compose a part of all na- 
tions, they are included fri the command to "teach and 
baptize all nations." Will those who make the argument 
stand by the same rule throughout ? The veriest infidel 
that lives is a part of all nations — should he be baptized for 
that reason ? Idiots belong to all nations — should they 
therefore be baptized ? If infants should be baptized be- 
cause they are a part of all nations, then there is not an 
atheist or an infidel which may not be baptized for the 
same reason. The phrase all nations often occurs in the 
Scriptures, where only a class is embraced in it. The word 
cthne, rendered nations, occurs about eighty times in the 



452 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

New Testament, where the context clearly shows that in- 
fants are not included. There are no less than eight such 
passages in Matthew's gospel. We will give a few New 
Testament examples. " Ye shall be hated of all nations." 
Matt, xxiv : 9. " This gospel of the kingdom shall be 
preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations." 
Ver. 14. " My house shall be called of all nations the 
house of prayer." Mark xi : 17. " Made known to all na- 
tions for the obedience of faith." Rom. xvi : 26. " Babylon 
is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all 
nations drink of the wine of her fornication." Rev. xiv : 8. 
"All nations shall come and worship before thee." Rev. 
xv : 4. " By thy sorceries were all nations deceived." Rev. 
xviii : 23. Similar examples may be found in the Old Test- 
ament. " I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to 
battle." Zech. xiv: 2. Surely, we are not to understand 
by this that all the infants, idiots, and old women of all 
nations were to enter the army of Titus to fight against 
Jerusalem. These quotations need only be carefully read 
to see that in every instance infants were excluded, though 
the phrase all nations was used ; then why should the same 
words necessarily include them in the commission ? We 
think they are just as clearly excluded by the context as 
they are in either of the texts quoted above. " Go teach 
all nations, baptizing them." Infants nor idiots are sub- 
jects of gospel address, and can not be taught the gospel ; 
hence, if the Lord required the apostles to teach such the 
gospel, He simply required of them an impossibility. 

But worse still : If infants are included in the commis- 
sion, then it follows that they must all be lost. Mark 
records the commission thus : " Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature ; he that believ- 
eth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
not shall be damned." Mark xvi : 16. Infants can not 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 453 

believe the gospel ; hence, if the commission includes 
them, they must all be damned. The language of Mark 
is even more comprehensive than that of Matthew. He 
says teach all nations ; Mark says go into all the world 
and preach the gospel to every creature. Surely, then, if 
the phrase all nations includes infants, then every creature 
in all the world would none the less include them ; and 
if so, they can not believe ; and as those who believe not 
must be damned, we see no chance for the salvation of 
one of them according to the Pedobaptist argument 
based on the commission. 

Again : The language of the commission makes failh 
a necessary antecedent to baptism. Teach the nations, 
baptizing them — he that believeth and is baptized. Here 
the inference is clear that unbelievers are not to be bap- 
tized ; nay, a want of faith is sufficient to bar any one 
from the sacred rite ; infants can not believe, and there- 
fore can not be scripturally baptized under this commis- 
sion. More of this directly. 

But we are now ready to make a little advance in the 
argument. Having seen that the commission does not 
authorize infant baptism, we respectfully suggest that it 
very clearly forbids the practice. When God gave specific 
directions for doing any thing, it was a clear violation 
of law to do it otherwise. When God commanded Noah 
to build an ark of gopher wood (Gen. vi : 14), it clearly 
implied a prohibition to make it of cedar wood ; and had 
he made it of cedar, it would have been as clear a viola- 
tion of God's law as though he had not made it at all. 
When God commanded Moses to make a serpent of brass y 
and put it upon a pole in the midst of the camps of 
Israel (Num. xxi : 9), it implied a prohibition to hang up 
a brazen pot in the camp. When God commanded a Jew 
to kill a red heifer, he dare not kill a black one, because 



454 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

it would have been a clear violation of the law. When 
God commanded a Jew to offer a ewe lamb of the first 
year, he dare not offer a male or an old sheep. When 
God commanded the apostles to teach the nations, bap- 
tizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, He clearly implied that they were not to baptize 
into other names; and were any one to baptize into the 
names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would be regarded 
as an impious violator of God's holy law. Then, when the 
Lord told the apostles to teach all nations, baptizing them, 
the taught, the language as clearly implied that they were 
to baptize none others, as did the command to build the 
ark of gopher wood imply that he was not to make it of 
cedar wood. Hence, it is just as clear a violation of the 
commission to baptize an untaught infant as though the 
Lord had expressly forbidden it. 

That we are correct in our interpretation of the com- 
mission, may be further seen by an examination of the 
various baptisms recorded in the Acts. That the Lord 
made faith an indispensable antecedent to baptism is con- 
firmed by the fact that no case can be shown where any 
were baptized without it. Believers, and believers only, 
were baptized by divine authority. With this thought spe- 
cially before us, let us examine every case on record, and see 
whether or not we can find an exception. And as we 
proceed we may note any evidence, of any kind, of the 
baptism of any infant by divine authority, if any such 
there be. 

I. The first baptism which occurred under the commis- 
sion just examined was the Pentecostian converts. Peter 
preached the gospel to the people ; thousands heard, un- 
derstood, and believed it ; were cut to their hearts, and 
anxiously inquired what to do. Peter told them to repent 
and be baptized. He would not have addressed infants 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 455 

thus, for they could not repent ; nor will it do to assume 
that some were infants, for the command says every one 
of yon. As many as gladly received his word were bap- 
tized ; no more, not another one. This is clearly the im- 
port of the language, as many as gladly received his word. 
Infants can not so receive the word, hence none were 
baptized. That faith preceded their baptism is evident 
from the fact that they were pricked in their hearts. This 
was a result of their faith in what Peter had preached. 
Infants would have heard Peter any length of time with 
perfect indifference, because they could not have under- 
stood him. 

2. The second case of baptism recorded was at Sama- 
ria, where Philip preached the gospel to the people, and 
"when they believed Philip preaching the things concern- 
ing the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, 
they were baptized, both men and women." Acts viii : 12. 
When they believed Philip they were baptized, not until 
then. Hence, Philip understood faith to be antecedent to 
baptism, and none but men and women were baptized. 

3. "Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was 
baptized he continued with Philip, and wondered, behold- 
ing the miracles and signs which were done." Ver. 13. 
In Simon's case, the same order is observed — preaching, 
hearing, faith, then baptism, but not until then. Is not 
this in harmony with the commission ? Preach the gospel ; 
he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Preach- 
ing, hearing, faith, then baptism is the order ordained of 
the Lord, and as this order can not apply to infants, it 
follows that baptism was not intended for them. 

4. But we have another example of baptism in this 
chapter. We find that Philip preached the gospel to a 
distinguished Ethiopian nobleman, who understood and 
believed it, and demanded baptism, saying : " See, here is 



456 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And Philip 
said, If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest. 
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God." Acts viii : 36, 37. This case most 
clearly shows that no one was allowed to be baptized who 
did not believe with the heart in Jesus Christ as the Son 
of God. When this man demanded baptism, he was told 
that if he believed he might be baptized, clearly implying 
that if he did not believe he was not a fit subject for bap- 
tism. Who, then, has a right to improve upon the work 
of Philip and baptize such as do not believe in Jesus 
Christ at all ? Are there two baptisms, one requiring 
faith to prepare the subject for it, and another which may 
be administered without faith ? Paul says there is one 
Lord, one faith, and one baptism. 

5. The next case recorded is that of Saul of Tarsus, 
afterward called Paul, an account of which we have in the 
ninth and twenty-second chapters of the Acts, which we 
need not stop to examine, as no question important to our 
search can arise concerning it. 

6. A case of much more interest and importance to our 
inquiry, is the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles at 
the house of Cornelius, recorded in the tenth chapter of 
the Acts. Not to be tedious in unimportant details, it is 
sufficient to state that Peter visited the house of Corne- 
lius in Cesarea, and preached the gospel to him and his 
friends who were there assembled. While he spake, the 
Holy Spirit fell on them who heard the word, and they of 
the circumcision heard them speak with tongues and mag- 
nify God. They were all old enough to talk, to say the 
least of it. And he commanded them to be baptized in 
the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry 
certain days. Who solicited Peter to tarry certain days ? 
They who had been baptized ; nor is there any evidence 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 457 

that any one was baptized who did not join in this solic- 
itation. 

7. The next case recorded is the baptism of Lydia and 
her household, a record of which we have in Acts xvi : 15. 
The subject of household baptisms has been one out of 
which more capital has been made by the advocates of in- 
fant baptism than perhaps any thing else. It is assumed 
that infants are in every family, and hence were baptized 
when and where there was a household baptized. To 
prove that infants were baptized with Lydia's household, it 
must be proved, 1. That Lydia was a married woman, or at 
least had children ; 2. That some of these children were 
infants ; 3. That these infant children were with her, 
though she lived in Thyatira and was then in the city of 
Philippi, three hundred miles from her home. We grant 
that it is possible that Lydia was a married woman ; but 
what are the probabilities of the case ? As she was three 
hundred miles from home, on a mercantile mission, is it 
not likely that if she had a husband he would have made 
the trip for her ? or had she gone without him, is it not 
likely that he would have taken care of the children at 
home without burthening her with them ? But is it likely 
that a husband composed a part of her household ? Surely 
not. As the husband is, in the New Testament, regarded 
as the head of the family, the household would have been 
ascribed to him rather than to her. Nor is it at all likely 
that the husband would not have been named in the nar- 
rative by the historian had he been present, for the same 
writer did mention both on other occasions where they 
were present. See Acts v: 1 ; xviii : 2. And there is a 
fair intimation by Lydia herself that she did not have a 
husband ; at least, if she had, that he was not with her. 
She says: "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the 
Lord, come into my house and abide there." Ver. 15. As 
39 



45§ THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

a modest Christian woman, it is not likely that she 
would have claimed the house in presence of her hus- 
band ; nor is it likely that she would have invited guests 
into her house on the sole ground of her fidelity to the 
Lord, and say nothing of her husband had he been pres- 
ent. It was a delicate matter for her to invite men into 
her house to remain with her in the absence of a husband, 
and, knowing that good men would feel a delicacy in doing 
so, she put the invitation upon the express ground of her 
fidelity to the Lord. Virtually, this was saying: "Though 
I am a long ways from home, where you can know nothing 
of my character, and my family is made up of such as are 
in my employment, yet if you have judged me to be faith- 
ful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there." 
The argument prevailed, and she constrained us, says the 
apostle ; and that her family was composed of adults may 
be seen in the fact that after Paul and Silas had been re- 
leased from prison they " entered into the house of Lydia ; 
and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them 
and departed." Acts xvi : 40. Then, her family was com- 
posed of such as were capable of being comforted by the 
apostles, and there is not the slightest evidence that she 
even had a child there or at home. But suppose we grant 
that she had infants, and that they were with her, it would 
be no evidence that they were baptized, because they were 
not subjects of gospel address, and hence were not bap- 
tized in flagrant violation of the law of the Lord requiring 
faith before baptism. We have seen that the commission 
required the gospel to be preached to every creature in all 
the world, and yet it did not apply to infants, else they 
must all be damned. The import of it is, preach the gos- 
pel to every creature of the classes embraced in the gospel. 
So, when Lydia and her household were baptized, the clear 
inference is that, if there were infants or idiots in her 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 459 

house, they were not subjects of baptism and made no part 
of the household baptized. Nothing is more plainly ap- 
parent in the Scriptures than that the word household, and 
even the phrase all the house, are used in a limited sense — 
i. e., where a class of persons, and not every one in the 
house, was included. It is said "the man Elkanah, and 
all his house, went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly 
sacrifice and his vow." Here it is expressly stated that 
Elkanah and all his house went to offer sacrifice to the 
Lord. This is strong language — all his house ; but did 
every one go ? " But Hannah went not up, for she said 
unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be 
weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear 
before the Lord, and there abide forever. And Elkanah 
her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good ; 
tarry until thou have weaned him." I Sam. i: 21-23. 

From this quotation it is clear that Elkanah's wife and 
child did not go to offer the yearly sacrifice, though it is 
said all his house went up. Then, were it granted that 
Lydia's household had infants in it, and it were said, not 
only that her household was baptized, but that all of it was 
baptized, still it would only imply that all for whom bap- 
tism was intended were baptized. Thus we see the utter 
impossibility of proving infant baptism from household 
baptisms, even were every thing granted that is claimed ; 
but we have seen no evidence of an infant in Lydia's 
household to be baptized. 

8. But we have an account of another family baptism in 
this chapter. The jailer " was baptized, he and all his, 
straightway." It is claimed that this jailer had infants in 
his family, and, as he and all his were baptized, his infants 
were baptized also. Is this position warranted by the 
proof? The record says : " They spake unto him the word 
of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." Ver. 32. 



460 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

The gospel was preached to all that were in his house. 
Why preach the gospel to senseless babes ? But he and 
all his were baptized. Yes ; "And when he had brought 
them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, 
believing in God with all his house." Ver. 34. Then the 
same, all his house, that were baptized were capable of 
rejoicing and believing in God. We think such should be 
baptized; but we submit to the unprejudiced judgment of 
the reader whether infants are capable of doing what is 
here said to have been done by the jailer and those baptized 
with him. Can they believe in God? Can they rejoice in 
the privileges of the gospel ? If not, then no infants were 
among the baptized of this family. 

9. "And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and 
were baptized." Acts xviii : 8. Here the order is in per- 
fect harmony with the commission. The gospel was 
preached, the Corinthians hearing believed it, and their 
faith prepared them for baptism, to which they submitted. 
Of course, there were no infants baptized among them. 

10. The twelve disciples found at Ephesus by Paul had 
been baptized with the baptism of John after the organiza- 
tion of the church on the day of Pentecost ; hence, their 
faith was defective. John preached that they should believe 
on a Saviour to come after him, hence they were believing 
in a Saviour to come who had already come. Their bap- 
tism was defective for these reasons : 1. It was not admin- 
istered in the name or by the authority of the Lord Jesus 
Christ ; 2. It was not into the name of the Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit, as the baptism then in force required to 
be administered ; 3. John's baptism had been superseded 
by another ; hence, when Apollos only knew John's bap- 
tism, it was necessary that he be taught the way of the 
Lord more perfectly — i. e n that John's baptism had passed 
away and was not then in force, and hence worthless to 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 46 1 

those who received it. When these disciples heard these 
things, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord 
Jesus." Acts xix : 5. We will not insult the reader by 
offering an argument to show that there were no infants 
among these, and that faith preceded their baptism. 

We believe we have now examined every case of bap- 
tism recorded in the Acts. There are a few incidental 
allusions to other cases in the epistles which throw no 
additional light on the subject. Now, will the reader 
bring himself as near the judgment of the great day as 
it is possible for mortals to come in this life, and ask 
himself the question, "Is there a case of infant baptism 
recorded in all the Book of God ? Have we been able 
to find one ?" We have found where believers were bap- 
tized by thousands. We have found where men and wo- 
men were baptized in great numbers, and in families, but 
nowhere is there a record of the baptism of a single 
infant. Suppose a modern preacher had written the Acts 
of the Apostles, and things had been then as now, we 
imagine the narrative would have run about thus : "As 
many as gladly received his word were baptized, with 
their children, and the same day there were added three 
thousand adults and as many infants!' " They were 
baptized men, women, and CHILDREN." "And he 
commanded men, women, and CHILDREN to be bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord." " And when she and 
the infants of her household were baptized." "And he 
took them the same hour of the night and washed their 
stripes and was baptized, he and all his infant children, 
straightway." Recently, I read a scrap from a preacher's 
journal of several years ago, running thus : " Baptized 20 
adults and 21 children." "Sept. 3. Sunday, I preached, 
and then baptized 21 adults and 3 infants." "On the first 
Sunday in this month I baptized 34 adults and their chil- 



462 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

dren — 48 in all." This shows us what the record kept — 
or. rather, made — by Luke would have been had infants 
been baptized then as they are now. On the contrary, we 
have found the same order every-where. As faith comes 
by hearing, the gospel was first preached that the people 
might hear, understand, and believe it. Jesus said : " He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;" hence, 
when they believed, if they desired salvation, they were 
baptized, both men and women ; but we may safely affirm 
that no one without faith in Jesus Christ was ever bap- 
tized by divine authority. Paul says : " Without faith it 
is impossible to please him." Heb. xi : 6. Therefore, 
when any one is baptized who has no faith, such baptism 
can not be pleasing to God. "That which is not of faith 
is sin." Rom. xiv : 23. Infants can not exercise faith 
hence their baptism can not be of faith, and is, therefore, 
sin. Hence, we conclude that an infant has never yet 
been baptized by divine authority anywhere. 

Paul says Jesus gave Himself for the church, " that he 
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water 
by the word, that he might present it to himself a glo- 
rious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such 
thing ; but that it should be holy and without blem- 
ish." Eph. v : 26, 27. When would the church attain to 
this state of perfection if the practice of .infant baptism 
was universal, and baptism introduced infants into the 
church ? (And if its advocates could succeed in their 
efforts it would be universal, and should be universal if 
right ; if wrong, it should not be at all.) All distinction 
between the church and the world would be obliterated ; 
nay, there would, in this sense, be no world. All would be 
in the church, good and bad. Drunkards, liars, murderers, 
infidels, atheists, and all other classes would be in the 
church, having entered it by baptism in infancy ; for none 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 463 

thus introduced are ever excluded for crime unless they 
make a profession of religion in maturer years. Such a 
church as there would then be ! ! ! Was this the glorious 
church for which Jesus gave His life, that it might be 
without spot, wrinkle, blemish, or any such thing ? Is this 
the bride which He is coming to receive, expecting her to 
be clad in robes of righteousness comparable to fine linen, 
clean and white? Rev. xix : 8. 

This theory perfected would make void the commission 
of Jesus Christ. If infant baptism universally prevailed, 
there would be no such thing as believers baptism. When 
Jesus says : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved," infant baptism comes along and takes every subject 
from Him, leaving not one to grow old enough to believe 
the gospel and be baptized. Nor is this all ; Peter's ser- 
mon on the day of Pentecost would not apply to such a 
state of things. Were all baptized in infancy, no one in 
mature years could be commanded to " repent and be bap- 
tized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." 
Such a command could not apply to infants ; and as there 
would be no unbaptized men and women, there would be 
none to whom such preaching could apply. Is it not clear, 
therefore, that the gospel plan of salvation given by Jesus 
Christ and carried into operation by His inspired apostles 
did not contemplate the baptism of infants ? 

Baptism, says Peter, is " the answer of a good conscience 
toward God." I Pet. iii : 21, It was not to be a mere 
fleshly washing, but was intended to reach the conscience ; 
but how can it reach the conscience of an infant ? It may 
satisfy the consciences of some misguided parents ; but the 
conscience of the infant subject has nothing to do with it ; 
nor can it be in the least exercised thereby. One of the 
most pernicious tendencies of the practice is that it pre- 
vents many thousands of conscientious persons from intel- 



464 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ligently obeying the Lord for themselves. They are in- 
formed by their parents or others that they were baptized 
in infancy, and they must be content with this statement. 
If they are more correctly taught in after life, and desire 
to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remis- 
sion of sins, they must abandon the church of their infancy 
or they can not obtain the services of an administrator. 
Hence, nothing short of an abandonment of their entire 
system of theology can secure their emancipation from the 
bondage of a practice unauthorized by inspired precept or 
example, even as admitted by many wise and good men 
who practice it. 

We come now to notice the argument which those who 
defend infant baptism base upon the history of the prac- 
tice ; and we promise our readers the utmost brevity in its 
examination, for we have already dignified the subject of 
this chapter with an undue portion of our space. Indeed, 
we confess our inability to see the importance which those 
who make the argument attach to it. Suppose it were 
true, and could be so proved by well authenticated history, 
that infant baptism was practiced even in the days of the 
apostles, unless it could be shown that it met their ap- 
proval, it would not authorize the practice. In Paul's 
time he tells us that "the mystery of iniquity doth already 
work." 2 Thess. ii : 7. He also says : " I know this, that 
after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among 
you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall 
men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples 
after them." Acts xx : 29, 30. If, therefore, innovations 
began to spring up even in the days of the apostles, and 
persons then among the disciples, who had been blessed 
with the personal instruction of the apostles, would, so 
soon after Paul's death, teach perverse doctrine which 
would draw disciples after them, is it surprising that infant 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 465 

baptism should be introduced in two hundred years ? 
That it did not have the sanction of inspiration in any 
way, we have already shown by the admissions of as truly 
great and good men as belong to the Pedobaptist ranks ; 
what, then, is gained by proving, what no one denies, that 
it has been practiced from the days of Origen until now ? 
are we to practice every thing which came into the church 
in those days ? If so, we must go to anointing with oil — 
casting devils out of persons before they are baptized — 
breathing on them in imitation of the Saviour — consecra- 
ting the baptismal water — applying salt and spittle to the 
tongue — giving honey and milk — anointing the eyes with 
clay — covering the head, and numerous other things which 
came into the church about the time infant baptism was 
introduced. They were practiced from about the close of 
the second century, on for several hundred years, why not 
practice them now ? Do you say they were without divine 
authority ? We grant it ; but many of the wisest and best 
men who have practiced infant baptism admit the same 
of it ; why not discard them all together; or practice 
them all, and be at least consistent ? 

We believe Irenaeus is the first witness whose testimony 
is introduced in support of the practice. He wrote about 
the year 190, and is quoted by Neander, vol. i, p. 311. As 
Neander was a Pedobaptist historian, we will give what he 
says on the subject in connection with the quotation from 
Irenaeus. He says: "Baptism was administered at first 
only to adults, as men were accustomed to receive baptism 
and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for 
not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and 
the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as 
an apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis. 
Irenaeus is the first church teacher in whom we find any 
allusion to infant baptism, and in his mode of expressing 



466 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

himself on the subject, he leads us at the same time to 
recognize its connection with the essence of the Christian 
consciousness ; he testifies of the profound Christian idea 
out of which infant baptism arose, and which procured for 
it at length universal recognition. Irenaeus is wishing to 
show that Christ did not interrupt the progressive develop- 
ment of that human nature which was to be sanctified by 
Him, but sanctified it in accordance with its natural course 
of development and in all its several stages. ' He came to 
redeem all by Himself; all who through Him are regener- 
ated to God ; infants, little children, boys, young men and 
old. Hence, He passed through every age, and for the in- 
fants He became an infant, sanctifying the infants ; among 
the little children He became a little child, sanctifying 
those who belong to this age, and at the same time present- 
ing to them an example of piety, of well-doing, and of obe- 
dience ; among the young men He became a young man, 
that He might set them an example and sanctify them to 
the Lord.' " 

The reader will observe that Neander says that Irenaeus 
is the first church teacher in whom we find any allusion to 
infant baptism, and hence the practice can not be traced 
further back than 190 A. D., even granting that Irenaeus 
means baptism by "regenerated to God." Neander further 
testifies that baptism was administered at first only to 
adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and 
faith as strictly connected. And why should they not be 
connected when Jesus so connected them, saying : " He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ;" and Philip 
made faith an indispensable condition upon which he 
would baptize the eunuch — " If thou believest with all thy 
heart thou mayest ?" But Neander further says : " We have 
all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic 
institution." These are surely strong admissions coming 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 467 

from one whose practice shows they were not suggested 
by partisan feelings. 

Again he says : " But immediately after Irenaeus, in the 
last years of the second century, Tertullian appears as a 
zealous opponent of infant baptism ; a proof that the prac- 
tice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolical 
institution ; for otherwise, he would hardly have ventured 
to express himself so strongly against it." Neander, vol. 
i, p. 312. On the same page Neander quotes Tertullian 
as follows : " Let them come, while they are growing up ; 
let them come while they are learning, while they are being 
taught to what it is they are coming ; let them become 
Christians when they are susceptible of the knowledge of 
Christ. What haste to procure the forgiveness of sin for 
the age of innocence! We show more prudence in the 
management of our worldly concerns, than we do in in- 
trusting the divine treasure to those who can not be in- 
trusted with earthly property. Let them first learn to feel 
their need of salvation, so it may appear that we have 
given to those that wanted." 

Dr. Wall has a slightly different translation of this par- 
agraph, as follows : " Therefore, let them come when they 
are grown up ; let them come when they understand ; 
when they are instructed whither it is that they come ; let 
them be made Christians when they can know Christ. 
What need their guiltless age make such haste to the for- 
giveness of sins ? Men will proceed more warily in worldly 
things ; and he that should not have earthly goods com- 
mitted to him, yet shall have heavenly. Let them know 
how to desire this salvation, that you may appear to have 
given to one that asketh." Wall's Hist. Infant Bap., vol. 
i, p. 94. 

Neander comments upon this paragraph from Tertullian 
as follows: "It seems, in fact, according to the principles 



468 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

laid down by him, that he could not conceive of any efficacy 
whatever residing in baptism, without the conscious par- 
ticipation and individual faith of the person baptized ; nor 
could he see any danger accruing to the age of innocence 
from delaying it ; although this view of the matter was not 
logically consistent with his own view. 

" But when, now, on the one hand, the doctrine of the 
corruption and guilt cleaving to human nature in conse- 
quence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more 
precise and systematic form, and, on the other, from the 
want of duly distinguishing between what is outward and 
what is inward baptism (the baptism by water and the bap- 
tism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly estab- 
lished that without external baptism no one could be de- 
livered from that inherent guilt, could be saved from the 
everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to 
eternal life ; and when the notion of a magical influence or 
charm connected with the sacraments continually gained 
ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional 
necessity of infant baptism? Neander, vol. i, p. 313. 

Thus we see when and how the theory of infant baptism 
was finally evolved. Infantile depravity, or the guilt of 
original sin, was the foundation of it. The fathers drank 
down the notion that infants inherited the guilt of Adam's 
sin, and unless this was washed away in baptism they were 
lost if they died in infancy ; hence, says Neander, was 
finally evolved the unconditional necessity of infant bap- 
tism. They must be damned for Adam's sin unless bap- 
tized. Modern Pedobaptists are unwilling to admit this, 
and seek to derive it from the identity of the Jewish and 
Christian churches, as we have seen, and yet, strange 
enough, they base an argument on the history of infant 
baptism which must develop the true foundation of the 
practice and destroy every argument made in its support. 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 469 

But is Neander correct in this statement ? As he was a 
Pedobaptist himself, he could have had no motive to mis- 
represent the facts ; nevertheless, it may not be amiss to 
see whether or not he had authority for what he said. 

Dr. Wall was one of the most voluminous writers that 
has ever wielded a pen in defense of infant baptism. He 
makes a quotation from Justin Martyr, on which he com- 
ments as follows: " I recite this only to show that in these 
times, so very near the apostles, they spoke of original sin 
affecting all mankind descended of Adam, and understood 
that, besides the actual sins of each particular person, there 
is in our nature itself, since the fall, something that needs 
redemption and forgiveness by the merits of Christ. And 
that is ordinarily applied to every particular person by bap- 
tism." Wall, vol. i, p. 64. . 

When the fathers became well settled in the doctrine of 
infantile depravity, they very naturally desired a remedy 
for it, and, knowing that baptism was for the remission of 
sins, they conceived the idea of baptizing infants for the 
removal of the guilt of Adam's sin in them. By the close 
of the second century it made its appearance, and we have 
found Tertullian opposing it. In Origen's day it was more 
general, and we find him favoring it. He was born about 
185 A. D. 

Allowing him to have been fifty or sixty years old 
when he wrote, his writings would date near the middle 
of the third century. We have not much confidence in the 
authenticity of what is said to have been written by him, 
yet we will give some of it to the reader, and he can esti- 
mate it for himself. 

Dr. Wall says : "The Greek (which was the original) of 
all Origen's works being lost, except a very few, there re- 
main only the Latin translations of them. And when 
these translations were collected together, a great many 



470 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

spurious ones were added and mixed with them and went 
under Origen's name." Wall's History, vol. i, p. 106. 

Though Dr. Wall goes on to say that "critics quickly 
smelt them out and admitted none for his but such as ap- 
peared to have been done into Latin either by St. Hierome 
or Rufinus," yet he says : " Rufinus altered or left out 
any thing which he thought not orthodox, * * whereas 
now, in these translations of Rufinus, the reader is uncer- 
tain (as Erasmus angrily says) whether he read Origen or 
Rufinus." Pp. 106-108. 

The following paragraph is a translation of Rufinus' 
Latin of Origen's Greek by Wall : " Besides all this, let it 
be considered what is the reason that, whereas the baptism 
of the church is given for the forgiveness of sins, infants 
also are by the usage of the church baptized, when, if there 
were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, 
the grace of baptism would be needless to them." Wall, 
vol. i, p. 104. 

The following paragraph was translated from Origen's 
Greek into Latin by St. Hierome, and thence into English 
by Wall, who exonerates Hierome from any want of fidelity 
to the original of Origen : " Having occasion given in this 
place, I will mention a thing that causes frequent inquiries 
among the brethren. Infants are baptized for the forgive- 
ness of sins. Of what sins ? Or when have they sinned? 
Or how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, 
but according to that sense that we mentioned even now : 
none is free from pollution, though his life be but of the 
length of one day upon the earth ? And it is for that 
reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution 
of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized." Wall, 
vol. i, pp. 104, 105. This comes to us from Origen through 
Hierome and Wall, and must, therefore, be received as gen- 
uine. In it Origen answers the inquiries of his brethren 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? 471 

by plainly stating that it is because the pollution of our birth 
is taken away by baptism that infants are baptized. 

But there is another passage translated from Origen's 
Greek by Rufinus, to which we must give some attention : 
" For this also it was that the church had from the apostles 
a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants. For 
they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew 
that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin 
which must be done away by water and the Spirit." Wall, 
vol. i, p. 1 06. 

As this passage comes to us through Rufinus, an 
admitted interpolator of Origen's works, we can have no 
confidence in its purity ; and even Dr. Wall has given 
us some evidence of over-much zeal in his cause, by 
placing in brackets the phrase " or order," as though order 
was the synonym of tradition, and thus seeking to make 
his author say that the church had an order to give bap- 
tism to infants. Does tradition amount to an order? Let 
us see. " Tradition is a very convenient word to excuse 
and retain those things that were brought into religion 
without the authority of Scripture, by the ignorance of the 
times and the tyranny of men." Turettenus, in Booth 
Abridged, p. 273. 

" To convince the world how early tradition might either 
vary or misrepresent matters, let the tradition not only in, 
but before St. Irenseus' time, concerning the observation 
of Easter be considered, which goes up as high as St. 
Poly carp's time. If, then, tradition failed so near its 
fountain, we may easily judge what account we ought to 
make of it at so great a distance." Bishop Burnet, in Ibid. 

" Irenaeus, one of the first fathers, with this passage 
[John viii : 57] supports the tradition, which he saith he 
had from some that had conversed with St. John, that our 
Saviour lived to be fifty years old, which he contends for. 



472 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

See what little credit is to be given to tradition." Mr. 
Henry, in Ibid, pp. 3, 4. 

"As to the Scripture, instead of making that the only 
rule of faith, they [the Papists] have joined traditions with 
it ; that is to say, the most uncertain thing in the world, 
the most subject to impostures, and the most mixed with 
human inventions and weaknesses, tradition is so far from 
being able to serve for a rule, that it ought itself to be cor- 
rected according to that maxim of Jesus Christ, In the be- 
ginning it was not so. There is, therefore, nothing more 
improper to be the rule of faith than that pretended tra- 
dition which is not established upon any certain founda- 
tion, which serves for a pretense to heretics, which is em- 
braced pro and con, which changes according as times and 
places do, and by the favor of which they may defend the 
greatest absurdities by merely saying that they are the 
traditions which the apostles transmitted from their own 
mouths to their successors." Mr. Claude, in Ibid, pp. 
274, 275. 

Thus we see that, when contending against Papal usur- 
pation, Pedobaptists regard tradition as " the most uncer- 
tain thing in the world" — serves as a pretext for heretics, 
by the favor of which they may prove the greatest absurd- 
ities, even that Jesus lived to be fifty years old ; but when 
defending infant baptism, and nothing better can be had, 
tradition does very well, and may be called an order from 
the apostles to give baptism to infants ! With reference to 
Origen's remark, Neander says : " Origen, in whose system 
infant baptism could readily find its place, though not in 
the same connection as in the system of the North African 
church, declares it to be an apostolical tradition ; an ex- 
pression, by the way, which can not be regarded as of 
much weight in this age when the inclination was so 
strong to trace every institution which was considered of 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 473 

special importance to the apostles ; and when so many- 
walls of separation, hindering the freedom of prospect, had 
already been set up between this and the apostolic age." 
Neander, vol. i, p. 314. 

These quotations are deemed sufficient to show what 
estimate is to be placed upon Wall's substitution of the 
word order for tradition in the quotation from Origen. He 
verifies the adage that " drowning men will catch at 
straws." As he has nothing better with which to support 
his practice, we leave him in the enjoyment of his tradi- 
tion, but insist that he hold it as a tradition, not as an 
order. 

Having seen that the history of infant baptism can not 
be traced further back than about the close of the second 
century, we feel no disposition to pursue it into later 
periods, being content to know that it did not originate in 
the days of the apostles, or have their sanction ; this we have 
seen as surely as there is truth in the testimony of those 
who practice it. The reader will please remember that 
we have found its origin — not in the identity of the Jewish 
and the Christian churches — not in Jewish circumcision — 
not in Jewish proselyte baptism — not in the teaching of 
John the Baptist, Christ, or the apostles — but in the ab- 
surd dogma of infantile depravity, or the inherited guilt of 
Adams sin. So testifies Tertullian, so testifies Origen, 
and all the primitive fathers who give testimony on the 
subject. My distinguished friend Mr. Ditzler says : "They 
all believed that infants were depraved, as their writings 
show. * * They believed that baptism was regeneration 
in the sense of washing away original sin ; that infants 
were depraved by original sin, and could not be saved 
without this washing away of that sin ; and, therefore, they 
baptized infants that they might be saved. Now, the apos- 
tolic fathers speak in this manner, and refer to the bap- 
40 



474 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tism of infants." Louisville Debate, p. 163. This is a 
frank admission of what is unquestionably true, limiting 
the words apostolic fathers to such as wrote after the intro- 
duction of the practice. 

But we have later testimony than the so-called apostolic 
fathers on this subject. In a work, titled Doctrinal 
Tracts, page 251, we find the following paragraph in a 
treatise on baptism : 

" As to the grounds of it : if infants are guilty of orig- 
inal sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism ; seeing, 
in the ordinary way, they can not be saved unless this be 
washed away in baptism. It has been already proved that 
this original stain cleaves to every child of man ; and that 
hereby they are children of wrath and liable to eternal 
damnation." This work was published by Lane & Scott, 
New York, 1850, by order of the General Conference 
of the Methodist Church. Hence, the above paragraph 
comes to us indorsed by the Methodist Church through 
her General Conference only twenty-three years ago. And 
it clearly shows that infant baptism, in the judgment of 
that organization, was based upon the doctrine of original 
sin, or inherited guilt, by reason of which infants are chil- 
dren of wrath and liable to eternal damnation ; and in the 
ordinary way can not be saved unless this original sin be 
washed away by baptism. 

This tract was published, for about thirty years, by the 
General Conference as the production of Mr. Wesley's 
pen, but Mr. Jackson, the biographer of Mr. Wesley, denies 
that he wrote it. So far as the weight of its authority 
goes, it matters little whether Mr. Wesley wrote it or not ; 
it was written by some one of no ordinary power, as the 
tract itself shows ; and the fact that it was published by 
order of the General Conference gives it more authority 
than it could derive from Mr, Wesley or any other one 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 475 

man. But we do not regard Mr. Jackson's denial as quite 
sufficient to show that it was not written by Mr. Wesley. 
Of all writers known to us, as a class, biographers are 
least reliable. It is a well known fact that they ignore 
and often cover up the faults and exaggerate the virtues 
of their heroes ; and when we add to this the fact that 
Mr. Jackson's partisan feelings would incline him to mould 
Mr. Wesley's teaching in accordance with his own views 
and the interest of his church, we are inclined to accept 
his denial, under the circumstances, with some degree of 
caution. What are the circumstances connected with the 
publication of this tract ? In the advertisement following 
the title page it is shown that a number of tracts had been 
published with the Discipline for a time, but in 1812 the 
General Conference ordered them left out of the Disci- 
pline and published in a separate volume. Following this 
announcement, it is said : " Several new tracts are included 
in this volume, and Mr. Wesley's Short Treatise on Bap- 
tism is substituted in the place of the extract from Mr. 
Edwards on that subject." Here it is stated that the for- 
mer tract by Mr. Edwards was taken out and this one by 
Wesley was put in. Did those who made this statement 
tell the truth, or were they mistaken in what they said ? 

On page 249, we find a foot note, as follows : " That Mr. 
Wesley, as a clergyman of the Church of England, was 
originally a high-cJnirchman, in the fullest sense, is well 
known. When he wrote this treatise, in the year 1756, he 
seems still to have used some expressions in relation to 
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which we at this 
day should not prefer. Some such, in the judgment of the 
reader, may perhaps be found under this second head. The 
last sentence, however, contains a guarded corrective. It 
explains also the sense in which we believe Mr. Wesley in- 
tended much of what goes before to be understood." 



4^6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

As no name is attached to this note, we know not who 
wrote it, but we suppose it was by the publishing commit- 
tee. Be this as it may, it seems to have been written by 
some one acquainted with the facts, for it even gives the 
date when Mr. Wesley wrote the tract. This note, be it 
remembered, is attached to the tract itself. The whole 
Methodist Conference, publishers, publishing committee, 
and every body else connected with this tract, save Mr. 
Jackson, were mistaken for thirty years or Mr. Wesley 
wrote it. No child ever resembled its father more than 
does the style of this tract resemble the general style of 
Mr. Wesley's writings. But if those who practice infant 
baptism intend to repudiate the doctrine that infants are 
in danger of being lost unless baptized, we trust they will 
cease abusing us for opposing their baptism. If those who 
are unbaptized are in no more danger than those baptized, 
why abuse us for seeking to prevent that which can do no 
good? Surely, they do not wish to unjustly prejudice 
the minds of the people against us by making much ado 
about nothing. If infants need not baptism, why baptize 
them ? We think they are good enough without baptism. 
Jesus said : " Of such is the kingdom of heaven." Not of 
such as they will be when they are baptized, but of such 
as they are without baptism. 

But we are referred to the baptism of the Israelites in 
the cloud and sea as a clear case of the baptism of infants ; 
Paul says : "All our fathers were under the cloud, and all 
passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea." I Cor. x: I, 2. It is certain 
that infants were under the cloud and passed through the 
sea, hence it is insisted that they were in the typical bap- 
tism referred to by Paul, and should now be baptized to fill 
the antitype. Does the fact that they were under the 
cloud and in the sea prove that they were contemplated by 



WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED ? 477 

Paul in the baptism referred to ? If so, then the flocks 
and herds of the Hebrews were included also, for it is just 
as certain that they were under the cloud and in the sea 
as it is that the infants were there. Shall we baptize our 
flocks, therefore, to fill the antitype ? Why not ? They 
were taken along without their volition just as were the 
infants; hence, if these were baptized, why not those? 
Paul says that those baptized " did all eat the same spirit- 
ual meat ; and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for 
they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them ; and 
that Rock was Christ." Verses 3, 4. Thus we see that 
those contemplated by Paul were capable of receiving spir- 
itual instruction concerning Christ, which Paul calls spir- 
itual meat and drink. Hence, says he, "By faith they 
passed through the Red Sea as by dry land ; which the 
Egyptians essaying to do were drowned." Heb. xi : 29. 
Is it not clear that Paul did not contemplate infants ; but 
alluded to such as could receive spiritual instruction, and 
pass through by faith ? Infant baptism was never heard 
of in Paul's day ; hence, when he spake of baptized persons, 
either in type or antitype, he contemplated only such as 
were legitimate subjects of the rite. 

Suppose we try the commission by the same principle of 
interpretation applied to the baptism of the Israelites. 
Jesus said : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature." Now, it is just as certain that 
infants are creatures in the world, as it is that they were 
under the cloud and passed through the sea — were they 
contemplated in the commission ? If so, what next ? " He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned." Infants can not believe, 
therefore they must -all be damned ! Is any one prepared 
to accept the conclusion ? Surely not ; yet it is fairly de- 
ducible from the commission by the same rules applied to 



47^ THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the baptism of the Israelites to prove infant baptism. In- 
fants are not subjects of gospel address, and were not con- 
templated in the commission, nor are they subjects of bap- 
tism; hence they were not contemplated by Paul. 

Baptism is not a mere unmeaning ceremony, but a sol- 
emn act of obedience to God. Gentle reader, have you 
intelligently submitted to His will in the act required of 
you ? Jesus commanded the apostles to teach the nations, 
baptizing them, the taught — clearly implying that they 
should baptize none but the taught. We have seen that 
they, acting under this commission, preached the gospel 
to the people, and when they believed it they were bap- 
tized, both men and women. Intelligent, believing, penitent 
men and women who desire salvation should be baptized 
into the sublime names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
None others should be so baptized, for it would do them 
no good ; and should it unfortunately keep them from obey- 
ing God in mature years, it would do them much harm. 
In vain may we attempt the worship of God by obeying 
the commandments of men. Be baptized yourself; you 
can not obey God for your children ; but you can bring 
them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and 
when they are old enough to understand the Lord's will, 
you will have the consolation of seeing them obey it for 
themselves. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 

THE gospel plan of salvation is the grandest 
system of harmony and order ever devised by God 
for man. There is a place for every thing, and every 
thing should be in its place. We have found a place for 
faitJi, what it is, how it comes, and what it does ; a place 
for repentance, what it is, how it is produced, and what it 
does ; a place for the good confession, what it is, how it is 
made, when it should be made, who should make it, and 
what it is made for ; a place for baptism, what it is, and 
who should submit to it ; and now it remains for us to see 
what it is for, or to learn, if we can, the design of it — what 
office, if any, it fills in the great system of salvation to 
which it belongs. 

It is not to be presumed that the Lord required men and 
women to be baptized into the awfully sublime names of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, without 
some important design or end to be accomplished by it ; 
and when we take from baptism this design, it becomes 
an unmeaning pageant, which may be attended to or neg- 
lected as the caprice of the clergy or the people may de- 
termine. If a sick man waits until he gets well before he 
takes the medicine designed to cure him, it is scarcely 
necessary that he should then trouble himself to take it 
at all. So if a man must wait until he be saved from his 
sins, made a child of God and an heir of heaven, before he 

(479) 



48O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

obeys the Lord, we see not why he should still be baptized 
for the remission of sins already pardoned. Hence, when 
we take from baptism its design, it matters little who is 
baptized, how it is done, or whether it is done at all. 

That we may have something tangible and definite be- 
fore us, we affirm that baptism is for, or in order to, 
the remission of sins. This is its design, as taught by 
Christ and those who wrote the New Testament. Before 
offering the proof of this affirmation, it may be well to get 
its import clearly before the mind of the reader. We fully 
realize the importance of the proposition, and feel, there- 
fore, that we should well understand the import of the 
terms employed in its construction. 

" Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John iii : 4. 
Not a law, some law, or any law, but the law. There are 
laws which, we suppose, it would be no sin to violate ; but 
sin is the transgression of divine law, and whenever any 
other law comes in conflict with this law, it is no crime, 
but may be a virtue to violate it. That we be more 
plain, the wife is required to obey her husband, but were 
the husband to command her to steal, we suppose she had 
better obey God, who says "thou shalt not steal," than the 
husband who says "you shall steal." "All unrighteous- 
ness is sin." 1 John v: 19. 

There can be no enforcement of law without a penalty 
for its violation, and this penalty must be suffered by the 
guilty or it must be forgiven by the offended. By remis- 
sion of sins, then, we mean a release from the punishment 
due the violation of God's law. The same thought is ex- 
pressed in different forms ; as : "Remission of sins," Matt, 
xxvi : 28 ; Acts ii : 38. " Forgiveness of sins," Acts v : 3 1 ; 
xiii : 38; xxvi: 18. " Salvation^ from sins," Matt, i: 21. 
" Cleansing from sin," 1 John i : 7. " Blotting out of sin," 
Ps. Ii : 1 ; Isa. xliii : 25 ; Jer. xviii : 23. " Washing away 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 48 1 

sins," Acts xxii : 16. "Ceasing to remember sins," Jer. 
xxxi: 34; Heb. viii : 12; x: 17. All these, and others 
which we might give, are but different ways of expressing 
the same thought. A sin once committed can never be 
undone by any power, human or divine. The punishment 
may be commuted, suspended, or forgiven — undone it can 
not be, but must remain in the history of past events as 
long as eternity endures. How important, then, it is that 
we look well to the record we are making ; and how won- 
derfully kind, too, has been our Heavenly Father in pro- 
viding a plan of salvation by which we may escape the 
punishment justly due those who violate His law ! 

But while baptism is appointed of the Lord for the 
remission of sins, the pardon granted is retrospective, only 
for the sins of the past ; hence says Paul : " Being justified 
freely by his grace through the redemption that is in 
Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitia- 
tion through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous- 
ness for the remission of sins that are past." Rom. iii : 
24, 25. But does any one suppose that baptism is for the 
remission of all the sins of the party baptized, future 
as well as past? If not, what means John Calvin by the 
following language : " Nor must it be supposed that bap- 
tism is administered only for the time past, so that for sins 
into which we fall after baptism it would be necessary to 
seek other new remedies of expiation, in I know not what 
other sacraments, as if the virtue of baptism were become 
obsolete. In consequence of this error, it happened in 
former ages that some persons would not be baptized ex- 
cept at the close of their life, and almost in the moment 
of their death, so that they might obtain pardon for their 
whole life — a preposterous caution, which is frequently 
censured in the writings of the ancient bishops. But we 
ought to conclude that at whatever time we are baptized 
4i 



^82 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

we are washed and purified for the whole life. Whenever 
we have fallen, therefore, we must recur to the remem- 
brance of baptism, and arm our minds with the considera- 
tion of it, that we may be always certified and assured of 
the remission of our sins." Calvin in Campbell on Bap- 
tism, pp. 262, 263. 

This is an error into which Mr. Calvin and others fell 
by failing to recognize the fact that God has ordained a 
law of pardon or naturalization for the alien, by which he 
must become a citizen of His kingdom, and another law 
of pardon for him after he becomes a subject of His gov- 
ernment — one law of pardon for the stranger and another 
for His children. We do not know whether there are any 
who now believe the doctrine of the foregoing paragraph 
from Mr. Calvin's pen or not, but we do know that many, 
like him, have failed to make any distinction in the law 
which applies to the alien and that which applies to the 
erring Christian ; and, hence, the common objection to the 
doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins : " If baptism 
is for the remission of sins, why do you not baptize a man 
every time he sins ?" We are not surprised when such an 
objection comes from those who never read the Bible, but 
when it comes from good men who study the Bible, we 
know not how to account for it. Our charity, however, 
inclines us to make great allowance for the blinding influ- 
ences of a false theory, and to conclude that the objection 
is honestly made and must be met accordingly ; we, there- 
fore, proceed to show that God has given a law of pardon 
applicable to His erring children differing from the law of 
pardon given to the unconverted sinner. 

Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached 
Christ to the people, and " when they believed Philip 
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and 
the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 483 

and women. Then Simon himself believed also ; and 
when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and won- 
dered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done." 
Acts viii : 12, 13. Here is one law to which the Samari- 
tans submitted, in doing which they became children of 
God. Jesus said : " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." Mark, xvi: 16. The Samaritans, Simon 
among them, did believe and were baptized, and hence 
were pardoned as surely as there is any truth in the record. 
Simon did just what the others did, and was saved if they 
were saved. But " when Simon saw that through laying 
on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he 
offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that 
on whomsoever I lay hands he may receive the Holy 
Ghost." Ver. 18, 19. Here was a wicked thought which 
entered into the heart of Simon, but did the inspired 
teachers rebaptize him ? No ; but why not ? This is a 
case exactly applicable to the objection under examination. 
He, with the other Samaritans, had believed and been 
baptized, and was, therefore, saved ; yet he sinned. What 
shall he do now ? Peter said : " Repent, therefore, of this 
thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of 
thine heart may be forgiven thee." Ver. 22. Here is the 
law which applies to those who sin after having been bap- 
tized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their 
past sins. They must repent of the sin or sins committed, 
and pray to God for pardon, and, as His children, He will 
hear and pardon them. Being a child of God, " if any 
man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus 
Christ the righteous." 1 John ii : 1. And, again : " If we 
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our 
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 
i : 9. Here are privileges which the children of God have, 
which aliens, while children of the wicked one, have not. 



484 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

It is their gracious privilege to pray to their Father, with 
the assurance that He will grant them such favors as they 
ask in accordance with His will. 

But Mr. Ditzler says Simon " did not believe on Christ, 
but they simply believed Philip preaching the things con- 
cerning the kingdom of God * * * and were baptized. Acts 
viii: 12. Ver. 13 : Then Simon himself believed {i. e. f 
Philip preaching), and was baptized." Louisville Debate, 
p. 222. He says Simon did not believe on Christ, yet the 
scriptures he quotes show that he believed just what the 
others did; and no one doubts their faith. But he omits 
some words in the quotation, which, of course, he deems 
unimportant to the sense, yet we think them calculated to 
show just the opposite of what he said. They are the 
words "and the name of Jesus Christ" in the sentence, 
" They believed Philip preaching the things concerning 
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ." 

Then Philip preached the things concerning the king- 
dom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, which they and 
Simon believed, yet he did not believe on Christ at all ! 
Philip must have acted strangely inconsistent ; for, in the 
same chapter (ver. $j), we find that he would not bap- 
tize the eunuch until he confessed his faith in Jesus Christ 
as the Son of God, and yet he baptized Simon and the 
Samaritans who did not believe on Christ ! How is this ? 
But he continues : " Now, because Simon was baptized, 
sorcerer as he was, though at once said to be in the gall 
of bitterness and the bond of iniquity." How does he 
know that as soon as Simon was baptized this was at once 
said to him ? The record says : " When the apostles 
which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received 
the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John : 
who, when they were come down," etc. Ver. 14, 15. 

This shows that after Simon's baptism a report of the 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 485 

success of Philip's preaching had to go from Samaria to 
Jerusalem (a distance of thirty-six miles) ; the apostles 
have a meeting, and Peter and John go from Jerusalem to 
Samaria before Peter could have said to him what Mr. 
Ditzler says was said at once. We suppose the news went 
from Samaria to Jerusalem by the ordinary intercourse 
between those cities ; as we have no account of special 
messengers being sent to carry it, then it is impossible to 
tell how long a time elapsed from Simon's baptism to his 
rebuke by Peter. But when we take into consideration 
the means of travel in that country at that time, we know 
it was several days at least. 

Mr. Ditzler continues: "Peter's very words, 'I perceive 
thou art in the gall of bitterness/ imply he discovered he 
never had been right." Do Peter's words show that Simon 
never had been right ? Peter does not tell Simon to repent 
of all his sins, or even of sins, but of a specific sin — repent 
of this thy wickedness. Nor does he tell him to pray to 
God for the pardon of all his past sins, but for a specific 
sin — pray God if perhaps the thought of thine heart may 
be forgiven thee — this thought of purchasing the gift of 
God with money. We insist that this language clearly 
shows that one sin, and only one, stood charged against 
Simon, and that all his former sins had been pardoned 
prior to that time. 

Nor is this all ; Simon did not manifest a wicked, but a 
penitent, disposition after Peter rebuked him. Said he : 
" Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things 
come upon me." Acts viii : 24. And if Peter obeyed the 
instructions which was given to other disciples, to "pray 
one for another" (Jas. v: 16), he did pray for Simon, and 
none of these things came upon him. 

We have quoted Mr. Ditzler as expressing the generally 
received theory on Simon's case, because his language is 



486 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

matter of record, and can be found by those who will take 
the trouble to find and read the page to which we have 
referred them. Simon's case as clearly shows two laws 
of pardon — one for the alien and another for the erring 
Christian — as it is possible to show any thing by proof; 
we shall, therefore, treat this as settled, and proceed to 
examine the testimony upon which we rely to prove that 
baptism is for the remission of sins. 

Though John's baptism is not now binding upon any 
one, and has not been since the establishment of the 
kingdom for which it prepared material, yet a brief exam- 
ination of it is deemed important to a proper understand- 
ing of the baptism to which the taught of all nations are 
now required to submit. Indeed, that differed from this 
rather in its adjuncts than in the baptism itself. John re- 
quired those baptized by him to believe in a Saviour to 
come. John required those who came to his baptism to 
confess their sins — now those who would be baptized must 
confess their faith in the Son of God. Now, persons are bap- 
tized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Spirit. What formula John used is not known, 
but it is certain he did not baptize into these sublime 
names. John's baptism prepared material for position in 
a kingdom to be established, or a temple or church to be 
built ; now, persons are baptized into a kingdom already 
established, a temple which has beeii built, a church already 
in existence. While there are these differences in the ad- 
juncts, John's baptism was immersion in water — adults only 
were subjects of it, and it was for the remission of the sins 
of those who submitted to it. 

When John was named by the direction of the angel, 
his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and 
prophesied, saying : " Thou, child, shalt be called the 
prophet of the Highest : for thou shalt go before the face 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 487 

of the Lord to prepare his ways ; to give knowledge of 
salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins." 
Luke i : 76, J J. In fulfillment of this prophecy, and others 
made by the prophets, it is said " John did baptize in the 
wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the 
remission of sins." Mark i: 4. "And he came into all 
the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repent- 
ance for the remission of sins." Luke iii : 3. If these 
scriptures do not prove, beyond the possibility of even 
respectable quibble, that John's baptism was for the remis- 
sion of sins, then we know not how language might be 
shaped capable of proving that fact. 

To keep within the range of English criticism, the prep- 
osition of in these quotations implies possession — i. e., 
that baptism belongs to or grows out of repentance ; 
hence, those baptized by John were truly penitent, and 
desired to obey God in baptism that they might have 
knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins. 
But we are told that John's baptism did not follow repent- 
ance, but preceded and obligated to it. Then we are to 
understand that John baptized the impeiiitent upon a 
promise of future repentance. Suppose an applicant for 
baptism had said : " John, I have not repented, but if you 
will baptize me I will repent at a more convenient season," 
would John have baptized such an applicant ? But let us 
suppose this theory true for a moment, and see what it 
will do for the theory of those who advocate it. They 
tell us that there never has been but one law of pardon 
from the days of Adam until now, and that repentance 
precedes faith in the order of their occurrence. Then, as 
the same law of pardon existed in John's day that exists 
now, and baptism preceded repentance, and repentance 
preceded faith, it follows that baptism is first in order, 
then repentance, and faith comes last ; and, hence, we must 



48 R THE GOSPEL "*> ^ OF SALVATION. 

baptize persons without faith o.* repentance. Paul says : 
"Without faith it is impossible to please God," therefore 
such baptism could not be pleasing; to God ; and as that 
which is not of faith is sin, such baotism is sin. The 
advocates of this theory have often tantalized us for bap- 
tizing persons without sufficient preparation, but we would 
like to know how much preparation for baptism belongs 
to this theory. As it precedes repentance, and repentance 
precedes faith, what precedes and prepares for baptism ? 
Just nothing at all. 

But again : suppose their theory be true that repentance 
did follow, not precede, John's baptism, does it follow that 
his baptism was not for the remission of sins because it 
was not last in the order of conditions complied with ? 

We are told that Jacob served seven years for Rachel 
(Gen. xxix : 20) ; was not the first year's service as much 
for Rachel as that of the seventh year ? and could he ever 
have reached the seventh year without passing through all 
the preceding years ? When Naaman dipped himself seven 
times in Jordan, that he might be cured of his leprosy, though 
the cure followed the seventh dipping, all the preceding 
were as much for his cure as was the seventh. We mighr 
give numerous illustrations of this principle, but these arr 
enough to show that were we to concede that John's bap- 
tism preceded repentance, the concession would not prow 
that it was not for remission of sins. 

When the Bible says that John preached the baptism 
of repentance for remission of sins, the language affirms 
nothing of repentance, but that the baptism which belongs 
to repentance is for remission of sins. But why argue the 
question further ? It is plain enough. 

But there are those who admit that John's baptism was 
for the remission of sins, and yet they tell us that those 
who submitted to it could not enter the kingdom on 01 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 489 

after the day of Pentecost without being rebaptized. Now, 
if John's baptism was for the remission of sins, and those 
who submitted to it were pardoned — their sins remitted — 
for what must they be baptized on or after the day of 
Pentecost ? Must they again be baptized for the remissio7i 
of the same sins remitted in Johns baptism ? If not, then 
we see not why they should be again baptized. As the 
material prepared for the temple of Solomon was ready, as 
soon as brought together, for position in the building, so 
those baptized by John, and during the personal ministry 
of Jesus by the apostles, were ready to be placed in the 
great spiritual temple erected on the day of Pentecost — 
all that was necessary was that they should be placed to- 
gether, and the building was complete without the sound 
of axe or hammer. But more of this anon. 

We base our second argument upon the language of 
Christ to Nicodemus : " Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of 
God." John iii: 5. Having devoted a chapter each to the 
establishment of the kingdom and the philosophy of the new 
birth, we need not stop here to enlarge upon either ; but it 
is sufficient to remark that in the kingdom is a state of 
safety — out of it we know of no salvation for any one who 
belongs to the class of persons for whom it was estab- 
lished. Paul says : " Then cometh the end, when he shall 
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." 
1 Cor. xv : 24. 

How shall those for whom the kingdom was established 
be delivered with the kingdom unless they be in it ? He 
who enters the kingdom is saved, pardoned, justified ; but 
if there is salvation for intelligent men and women out of 
it, why did Christ give His life to establish it? Surely, it 
could do no good to establish a kingdom out of which per- 
sons could be saved as well as in it ; and had such been 



490 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the fact, when Jesus said "Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit he can not enter the kingdom," Nico- 
demus could have replied : " It matters not whether a man 
enters it or not, as he can be saved as well out of it 
as in it." 

As it is an incontrovertible truth, then, that men who 
would be saved from their sins must enter the kingdom, 
and as they can not enter it without being born of water 
and of the Spirit, it follows that a birth of water and of 
the Spirit is indispensable to salvation from sins. 

The only remaining question, then, is: Did the Lord 
allude to baptism when He tcsed the language "born of 
water ?" If not, to what did He allude? What other 
connection with water can there be to which He may 
have referred ? The religious world, with one voice, from 
the days of Christ until quite recently, has ascribed this 
language to water baptism. 

Speaking of the primitive fathers, Dr. Wall, the great 
pedobaptist historian, says: "They understood that rule 
of our Saviour, ' Except one be regenerated (or born again) 
of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the king- 
dom of God! of water baptism, and concluded from it that 
without such baptism, no person could come to heaven — 
and so did all the writers of these four hundred years, not 
one man excepted." Wall's History of Infant Bap., vol. i, 
pp. 69, 70. 

Thus we have Dr. Wall's testimony that every writer of 
the first four hundred years, without a single exception, 
understood the Saviour to refer to water baptism, and that 
no man could be saved without it. 

Again : on page 147, of the same volume, Dr. Wall says : 
"There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in 
any language, but what understands it of baptism ; and if 
it be not so understood, it is difficult to give an account 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 49 1 

how a person is born of water any more than born of 
wood." This is strong language, but no writer has ven- 
tured to dispute it. If it were not true, and any writer 
understood it otherwise, his writings would have been pro- 
duced in refutation of the statement. 

But what is the testimony of modern writers on this 
subject ? Mr. Wesley says : " Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit — except he experience that great 
inward change by the Spirit- and be baptized (wherever 
baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it." 
Wesley's Notes on John iii : 5. 

" By baptism, we who were ' by nature children of wrath,' 
are made the children of God ; and this regeneration which 
our church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more 
than barely being admitted into the church, though com- 
monly connected therewith ; being 'grafted into the body 
of Christ's church, we are made the children of God by 
adoption and grace.' This is grounded on the plain words 
of our Lord, ' Except a man be born again of water and 
of the Spirit, he. can not enter into the kingdom of God.' 
John iii : 5. By water, then, as a means, the water of 
baptism, we are regenerated or born again ; whence it is 
also called by the apostle 'the washing of regeneration.' " 
Doctrinal Tracts, published by order of the Methodist 
General Conference, pp. 248, 249. 

Bloomfield : " The purpose of the next verse (6) seems 
to be to set forth the indispensable necessity of this regen- 
eration by water and the Spirit, in order to the attainment 
of everlasting salvation ; for that as the natural or animal 
life depends on flesh and blood, so does the spiritual life 
depend on the baptism by water and by the Spirit." Greek 
Testament and Notes. 

Whitby: " If a ma?i be not bom of zvater : That our 
Lord speaks here of baptismal regeneration, the whole 



492 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Christian church from the beginning hath always taught, 
and that with very good reason." Notes on John iii : 5. 

Barnes: "Bom of water : By water here is evidently 
signified baptism ; thus the word is used, Eph. v : 26 ; 
Titus iii: 5." Notes on John iii : 5. 

Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College : " To be 
born again is precisely the same thing as to be born of 
water and of the Spirit ; and to be born of water is to be 
baptized; and he who understands the nature and authority 
of this institution, and refuses to be baptized, will never 
enter the visible or invisible kingdom of God." 

George Whitfield : "Born of water and of the Spirit: 
Does not this verse urge the absolute necessity of baptism ? 
Yes, when it may be had." Works, vol. iv, p. 355. 

While we do not indorse every thing quoted from these 
authors, they show that the learned of all ages understand 
baptism by the language bom of water. Did space permit 
we might extend the list of quotations ad infinitum. The 
Methodist Discipline quotes John iii : 1-8, in the baptismal 
ceremony. The Westminster and Cumberland Presbyte- 
rian Confessions refer to John iii : 5, as a proof text under 
the head of baptism, showing that they understand the 
passage to refer to water baptism, otherwise they would 
not thus refer to it. The Episcopalian Church so under- 
stands it, as the following questions and answers from the 
Catechism will clearly show : 

" Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace (of 
baptism ?) 

" Answer. A death unto sin and a new birth unto right- 
eousness, for being by nature born in sin, and the children 
of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace. 

" Q. But are there not some conditions required on the 
part of man in order to his being saved by the death of 
Christ ? 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 493 

"A. We must become members of that spiritual society 
or body of which Christ is the head. 

" Q. Why must we become members of this body? 

"A. Because we can not partake of the Spirit of Christ 
unless we are members of the body of Christ. ' There is 
one body and one Spirit.' Eph. iv : 4. 

" Q. What is the body of Christ commonly called ? 

"A. It is called the church. Eph. i: 23. 

" Q. How are we made members of the church or mys- 
tical body of Christ? 

"A. By baptism. 'We are all baptized into one body.' 
1 Cor. xii: 13. 

" Q. For what end did our Lord institute the rite of 
baptism ? 

"A. To be the way and means of admitting man again 
into the favor of God. ' Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of 
God.' John iii : 5. 

" Q. What favors or privileges does God grant to per- 
sons baptized in this new covenant ? 

"A. The forgiveness of all his own sins, if he hath com- 
mitted any, and the sin of Adam so far as concerned him ; a 
title to the Holy Spirit, as being the life of the body whereof 
he is now made a member, and the promise of a resurrec- 
tion of his body, and a glorious immortality in heaven. 

" Q. Can forgiveness of sin be obtained by those to 
whom the gospel is preached, out of the church ? 

"A. No ; for it is obtained only through Jesus Christ. 

" Q. Does baptism cleanse us from all the actual sins we 
have committed before.it ? 

"A. Yes ; as well as from original sin. 'Arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins.' Acts xxii : 16. 

" Q. Who instituted the sacrament of baptism and the 
Lord's Supper ? 



494 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

" A. Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the purpose of applying 
the merits of his death to us. 

" Q. Is it, then, a great advantage to receive these sacra- 
ments worthily ? 

"A. It is the greatest blessing of this life, because they 
are the means of conveying grace into our souls, without 
which we can do no good thing." 

This catechism teaches that baptism brings us into the 
church, out of which those to whom the gospel is preached 
can not be saved ; it brings us into the body of Christ, out 
of which we can not partake of the Spirit of Christ, with- 
out which we are none of His ; it is the means of obtain- 
ing the remission of all his sins, and Adam's sin as far as 
it pertains to him ; it gives a title to the Holy Spirit, a 
promise of a resurrection of the body, and a glorious im- 
mortality in heaven. Is not this enough ? Who ever at- 
tached more importance to baptism than this ? 

But our chief object in quoting it was to show that it 
refers the language of Jesus (born of water) to baptism. 
How comes it to pass now that men will abandon their 
own creeds and the plainest teaching of Holy Writ, as un- 
derstood by the learned of all ages, and deny that the pas- 
sage has any reference to baptism at all. When the Lord 
said : " Suffer little children to come unto me," and said 
not a word about water, or baptism, they can see plenty 
of water to baptize an infant ; yet where the Lord uses the 
language " born of water and of the Spirit," they can not 
find a drop of water in the passage. Whether or not they 
are consistent the reader will judge for himself. 

But we are told that if the kingdom was not established 
until the day of Pentecost, this language can not apply to 
it, for it was used before that time. It is true that the 
kingdom was not set up until the day of Pentecost ; and it 
is also true that this language was used by Christ before 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



495 



that time, but the same is true of every thing He said 
while on the earth ; hence it may all be wiped out by the 
same rule. The New Testament is the last will of the 
Saviour; was there ever a will the provisions of which were 
not arranged before the death of the testator? Jesus 
Christ arranged the provisions of His will before His 
death, and one very important provision was the manner 
of entering His kingdom when it should be established. 
The clause containing this provision was given to Nicode- 
mus in a figure, and went into effect when His apostles 
were installed executors of the will on the day of Pen- 
tecost. 

But the tenth verse — "Art thou a master of Israel, 
and knowest not these things ? " — is supposed to show 
that the lesson contained in the conversation was one 
which Nicodemus was presumed to know as a teacher 
of the Jewish law ; and as baptism for remission of sins 
was not taught in that law, he could not know it, and 
therefore it was not embraced in the conversation be- 
tween Christ and him. As a teacher of Israel, it was 
presumed that Nicodemus was capable of understanding 
plain instruction such as Christ had given him, but after 
Christ had explained the whole matter to him, he still 
did not understand it ; hence the question, "Art thou a 
master of Israel, and knowest not these things ? " and 
Jesus proceeds to tell him the reason : " We speak that 
we do know, and testify that we have seen ; and ye re- 
ceive not our witness. If I have told you of earthly things, 
and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of 
heavenly things?" Vs. 1 1, 12. Thus we see he did not 
know what Jesus had taught him because he did not receive 
the testimony presented. The Jewish age abounded with 
types and prophecies pointing to Christ and His kingdom, 
with which Nicodemus should have been familiar, yet he 



496 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

did not understand them when explained to him. Hence 
the objection amounts to nothing, and the argument stands 
forth in all its strength : When Jesus spake of a birth of 
water and Spirit, He referred to baptism, without which 
no man can enter the kingdom of God, and out of which 
there is no salvation for those to whom the kingdom 
comes. 

Our third argument is based upon the commission as 
recorded by Mark: "And he said unto them, Go ye into 
all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 
He' that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi : 16. 
To suit the theory of some who regard baptism a non- 
essential, and teach that man is justified by faith alone, 
the commission should read, " He that believeth and is 
saved may be baptized if convenient." Their theory con- 
fronts the Lord when He says, " He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved," and says, " Not so, Lord ; he that 
believes is saved, whether baptized or not." 

When a blessing is promised on certain conditions, it 
can not be enjoyed until the last condition is complied 
with. E.g.: When Naaman was commanded to wash him- 
self seven times in Jordan, that he might be healed of his 
leprosy, he was not healed until he dipped himself the 
seventh time. When the Jews were required to go around 
the city seven days, and on the seventh day seven times, 
that they might possess the city, the walls were not thrown 
down until they came to the end of the conditions pre- 
scribed ; so, when the Lord promises salvation to him who 
believes and is baptized, no one need expect the promised 
salvation until he has complied with the last prescribed 
condition. If he believes, yet has not been baptized, the 
blessing promised can not be expected. 

But we are told that the salvation here promised was 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 497 

salvation in heaven, or future salvation. This attaches 
much more importance to baptism than belongs to it. 
We can not be saved in heaven unless first saved from 
sin ; and as baptism secures salvation in heaven, it must 
save us from sin, and every thing beyond that. This is 
too strong meat for us. As Peter was one of those to 
whom this commission was given, and had the Spirit to 
guide him into all truth, perhaps he might tell us what 
baptism saves us from. On the day of Pentecost, oper- 
ating under this commission, he commanded persons to 
repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins; hence he understood "remission 
of sins," or salvation from the punishment due sin, to be 
the salvation of the commission. And when he wrote to 
his brethren he said, " Baptism doth also now save us " 
(i Pet. iii : 21); hence it is not a future but a present 
salvation which is received by baptism — not salvation in 
heaven, for it now saves us. 

But infidelity has furnished our neighbors an easier 
way of escape from the commission by Mark. Finding 
all other quibbles ineffectual, they now tell us it is an in- 
terpolation — a Roman Catholic forgery — " the whole of 
the chapter, from the ninth verse to the twentieth, inclu- 
sive, is spurious." This is a very convenient way of dis- 
posing of an argument whicji can not be met otherwise. 
If a passage is in harmony with our theory it is canon- 
ical, otherwise it is a forgery. We wish to enter our pro- 
test against the immolation of our Bible in this way. 
Interpolations in it there may be, but they must be in- 
controvertibly shown such before we can respect the at- 
tack of one against whose theory they chance to come. 
Such men can not blow a chapter out of our Bible with 
a breath. 

We propose to submit some testimony which may not 
42 



498 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

be in the possession of every one, with regard to the au- 
thenticity of this connection of Scripture. Prof. Stowe 
has made the authenticity of the books of the Bible a spe- 
cialty, and we suppose has given the subject more atten- 
tion than any man in America — perhaps than any man 
now living. He wrote a notice of Tischendorf s New Tes- 
tament, which was published in the "Christian Union," 
from which we extract the following : 

" The New Testament in English, edited by Tischen- 
dorf and published by Tauchnitz, is a work of great merit, 
in a scholarly point of view ; but to those not fully ac- 
quainted with the subject, altogether deceptive, though 
not intentionally so. Such, are apt to think that the three 
oldest manuscripts must be the best authority for the orig- 
inal text, and that what can not be found in them could 
not have been a part of the New Testament as it came 
from the hands of the apostles. This is a great and 
mischievous mistake. The three oldest manuscripts used 
by Tischendorf date from the first quarter of the fourth to 
the middle of the fifth century ; that is, some two hundred 
and twenty-five years, at least, after the New Testament 
had been written, read in the churches, and scattered all 
over* the Christian world — liable to all the accidents inci- 
dent to frequent transcription. 

" Now we have translations* of the New Testament in va- 
rious languages — Syrian, Egyptian, Ethiopic, and others — 
beginning with the' latter part of the second century. From 
the first century to the fifth there are not less than ten of 
these translations, and they certainly are a much better au- 
thority than manuscripts which had no existence till early 
in the fourth century. When these translations contain 
passages which are not contained in later manuscripts, the 
translations are much more likely to give the text as it 
stood in their time than the manuscripts. The loss of a 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



499 



leaf (for these manuscripts are all in book form, and not in 
rolls), the beginning in wrong places by the transcriber after 
a rest from writing, and various other circumstances, may 
easily account for an unintentional omission in the manu- 
scripts, but an interpolation must be intentional. On these 
accounts, and others that might be mentioned, it is easy 
to see that, at least in regard to interpolations, a good trans- 
lation of the second or third century is a far more reliable 
authority for the original of the text than the manuscript 
of the fourth or fifth century. The ten translations above 
alluded to are, therefore, on these points, far more trust- 
worthy than the three manuscripts used by Tischendorf 
in his new edition of the New Testament. 

"Again, we have numerous Christian writers — from the 
first century to the fifth — who constantly quote the New 
Testament as it stood in their time; and the quotations 
of the first three centuries are an earlier authority for the 
original text than any of the Tischendorf manuscripts. 
There are some seventy-five of these writers, and their 
quotations are so numerous that if every manuscript of 
the New Testament were lost, the substance of it could 
be reproduced from their writings. Moreover, the manu- 
scripts are all anonymous. We know not who wrote them ; 
but the quotations are given with responsible names. We 
know the authors of the books in which they occur. It is 
true that these translations, and the writings of the early 
Christian fathers, are generally more or less incomplete, 
and the text somewhat varied, but the same is true of the 
New Testament manuscripts. In the very best manu- 
script (the Sinaitic) Tischendorf indicates four different 
classes or kinds of variation. On this point all the au- 
thorities, whether translations or manuscripts, need care- 
ful editing — they all stand on precisely the same ground. 

" Now apply these principles to a single case by way of 



5<DO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

illustration. The last chapter of Mark's gospel, from the 
eighth verse onward, is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vati- 
can manuscripts, but is contained in the Alexandrian. It 
is in all the Syrian, Egyptian, and other translations of 
the second and third centuries, and it is quoted as the last 
part of Mark's gospel by Irenaeus, the most learned Chris- 
tian writer of the second century, and the student of Poly- 
carp, who had studied with the apostle John. Irenaeus 
tells us that he had the books of the Christian Scriptures 
in his possession at the very time when he was on terms 
of familiarity with Polycarp, daily listening to his accounts 
of what he had himself heard from John and others, who 
had seen the Lord. * * * This chapter of Mark is also 
found in more than five hundred Greek manuscripts, and 
also in the Latin and Gothic. Now, which is the more 
probable that all these most ancient witnesses had been de- 
ceived by an interpolation, or that, by some accident, the 
last leaf of Mark's gospel had been dropped out from the 
manuscript from which the Sinaitic and Vatican were 
copied ? From this statement of fact it is obvious that 
any one who should, in making a revised text of the New 
Testament, strike out all that is not contained in the three 
oldest manuscripts used by Tischendorf, must be guilty of 
a very faulty text. It is a remarkable fact, not to be 
lightly estimated, that a whole column of space is left 
blank in the Vatican manuscript as if the copyist had in- 
tended, but for some reason had omitted, to fill it with the 
text." 

In a subsequent paper Prof. Stowe enters into specifica- 
tions as follows : " We are perfectly safe and within bounds 
in concluding that, at least, the historical books of the 
New Testament were in circulation in the Syrian churches 
in the Peshito translation as early as the latter part of the 
first century. If so, then the Syrian Christians, the near 






THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



50I 



neighbors and contemporaries, and relations by language 
and race, of the apostles themselves, read this passage, 
the last verses of Mark's gospel, without question, as a 
genuine portion of the gospel of Mark, nearly three cen- 
turies before the oldest manuscript used by Tischendorf 
was written. Now take this in connection with the fact 
that no one knows either the origin or the history of the 
Tischendorf manuscripts, while both the origin and his- 
tory of the Syrian translation are known and well attested 
as to substance, and also the fact that an accidental omission, 
especially of the last leaf, is much more easily accounted 
for than an interlined interpolation, which, at that early 
period, and in those circumstances, would have been well 
nigh impossible, and any one can see that the authority of 
the Syrian translation must be, in this instance, altogether 
superior to that of the Greek manuscript. To this add the 
authority on the same point of all the translations of the 
second and third centuries, and of more than five hundred 
Greek manuscripts, and the case is made out. 

" Second authority, Irenaeus. He was born in Smyrna, 
near the beginning of the second century ; was the stu- 
dent of Polycarp, the celebrated bishop and martyr of 
that city, the disciple of John the apostle, and, not un- 
likely, the very a?igel of that church to whom John di- 
rected the epistle in Rev. ii : 8-17, dictated by the Lord 
Jesus. He had resided at home and early went as a mis- 
sionary to France, where he suffered martyrdom in the 
year 202. In writing to his friend Iconius, who was an 
elder in the church at Rome, he says : ' I saw thee when 
I was yet a boy in the lower class with Polycarp. I re- 
member the events of those times much better than those 
of more recent occurrence. I can tell the very place 
where the blessed Polycarp was accustomed to sit and dis- 
course of his familiar intercourse with John, as he was 



502 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

accustomed to tell, as also his familiarity with those who 
had seen the Lord ; how, also, he used to relate their dis- 
courses concerning his miracles, his doctrine ; all these 
were told by Polycarp, in consistency with the Holy Script- 
ures, as he had received them from the eye-witnesses. 
These things I attentively heard, noting them down in my 
mind ; and these same facts I am always in the habit of 
recalling faithfully to mind.' * * * Is not Irenaeus better 
authority on such a point as that which we are now con- 
sidering than any anonymous manuscript written nearly 
two centuries after his time ? Yet Irenaeus, in his great 
work on Heresies, iii, 10: 6, writes thus: 'Mark says in 
the end of his gospel (Mark xvi: 19), And, indeed, the 
Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received up 
into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.' 

" The third authority, Hippolytus. Hippolytus was a 
student of Irenaeus, the pastor of a church in the neighbor- 
hood of Rome, one of the most pious preachers and able 
writers of his time, and his works are still highly esteemed 
and widely read. In 155 1, a statue of him, with biograph- 
ical inscriptions, was disinterred near Rome, and in 1661 
and 1832, important long-lost writings of his were dis- 
covered, all of which excited great interest and enthusi- 
asm. In his work on spiritual gifts there is this passage : 
'Jesus says to all, at the same time, concerning the gifts 
which shall be given by Him through the Holy Spirit 
And these signs shall follow them that believe,' etc., etc., 
quoting the whole of Mark xvi: 17, 18. We need pursue 
the subject no further, nor quote the later fathers, Augus- 
tine, Jerome, and others. So far as the weight of author- 
ity is concerned, is not the genuineness of the passage in 
question established beyond reasonable doubt? Tischen- 
dorf has no superior in regard to New Testament Greek 
mamiscript authority ; but as to authority of translations, 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. C ^ 

church writers, etc., which are more ancient than any of our 
existing New Testament Greek manuscripts, Lachmann is 
his superior, and Lachmann retains this passage as genuine. 
As to the internal evidence, without these verses how 
abrupt and awkward the closing words of the gospel : 
'For they were afraid.' From the analogy of all the 
other gospels we could certainly expect something beyond 
this, and common sense would teach the same." 

We offer no apology for these long extracts from Prof. 
Stowe, they throw a flood of light upon the whole sub- 
ject, and we can well afford the space given if we may 
thereby preserve the integrity of the Bible. We could 
abundantly prove the doctrine of baptism for the remis- 
sion of sins without this passage, but with it there can be 
no plausible opposition. In the Introduction to the 
Tischendorf New Testament we find the following admis- 
sion : " The ordinary conclusion of the gospel of St. 
Mark, namely, xvi : 9-20, is found in more than five hun- 
dred Greek manuscripts, in the whole of the Syriac and 
Coptic, and most of the Latin manuscripts, and even in 
the Gothic version. But by Eusebius and Jerome (the 
former of whom died in the year 340), it is stated ex- 
pressly that in nearly all the trustworthy copies of their 
time the gospel ended with the eighth verse ; and, with 
this, of all existing known Greek manuscripts, only the 
Vatican and the Sinaitic now agree." 

We might quote numerous other authorities, but the 
foregoing are all for which we have room, and are deemed 
quite sufficient to establish the purity of the text beyond 
doubt. It is a positive utterance of Him who had all au- 
thority in heaven and upon the earth, that " he that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved." Heaven and earth 
may pass away, but the words of Jesus can not fail. 
Reader, are you a believer ? If so, have you been bap- 



504 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tized ? If not, can you feel that the promise, " he that be- 
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved," offers any consola- 
tion to you while in your present condition ? If not, " why 
tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 

We base our next argument upon the operations of the 
apostles under this commission. They were instructed to 
tarry at Jerusalem until endued with power from on high. 
They were all with one accord in one place when the 
Spirit came from heaven and took possession of their 
tongues, and spake forth the wonderful and mighty works 
of God to Jews, devout men, of every nation under 
heaven. The gospel was preached, they heard and be- 
lieved it, and were cut to the heart by it, and cried out 
" Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" To this impor- 
tant inquiry Peter replied : " Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the'remission 
of sins." Acts ii: 38. This answer was dictated by the 
Holy Spirit, and must therefore be accepted as applica- 
ble to the question asked. If there was ever a time when 
a plain, unambiguous answer was demanded, this was the 
time. His answer not only concerned the thousands then 
present, but as to him was committed the keys of the 
kingdom, and he was, for the first time, proclaiming the 
terms of admission, his answer must constitute a law of 
entrance for those who would become subjects of the 
kingdom until it shall have been delivered up to God even 
the Father. A plain answer was demanded, and we in- 
sist that such was the character of the answer given. 
There are two adjunctive phrases in the answer which 
we may first understand, and then remove for a moment 
in order to get the meaning of the trunk without them. 
Repent, and be baptized [every one of you, in the name of 
Jesus Christ] for the remission of sins. Every one of 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



505 



you. This shows that all are addressed, and this is the 
measure of its import. In the name of Jesus Christ. This 
shows by what authority he gave the command. When 
Peter healed the lame man who lay at the gate of the tem- 
ple, he said : " In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth 
rise up and walk." Acts iii : 6. When the people were 
astonished at what was done, Peter explained : " Ye men 
of Israel, why marvel at this ? or why look ye so earnestly 
on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had 
made this man to walk?" Ver. 12. This shows that the 
phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" simply conveys the 
idea of authority or power. This settled, then we leave 
out the adjunctive phrases that the members of the trunk 
may stand closer together, and we read it thus : Repent, 
and be baptized for the remission of sins. This leaves no 
room to doubt the object or design of the obedience re- 
quired. ' Repent, and be baptized. What for ? For the 
remission of sins. 

The preposition for connects repent and be baptized on 
the one hand with remission on the other ; of connecting 
sins with remission and governing it in the objective case. 
Hence, the relation expressed by the word for is between 
repent and be baptized on one side, and remission of sins on 
the other. The word for can not be divided and made 
mean one thing as to repent, and another thing as to be 
baptized. We have already shown, by rules of language 
quoted more than once, that the same word can not have 
more than one meaning at the same time, and in the 
same place ; hence, whatever may be the meaning of the 
preposition for as to repentance is its meaning as to bap- 
tism. They are connected by the copulative conjunction 
and, and must not be separated, but must sustain, in this 
sentence, the same relation to remission. This point be- 
ing settled, we turn to Peter for an explanation of the re- 



506 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

lation existing between repentance and remission, feeling 
sure that baptism sustains the same relation. We read : 
"Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins 
may be blotted out." Acts iii: 19. Do what? Repent 
and be converted. What for ? That your sins may be 
blotted out. Then, as men are to repent that their sins 
may be blotted out, and baptism sustains the same relation 
to remission of sins, it follows that men must be baptized 
that their sins may be blotted out. From this decision 
there is no appeal ; it is strong as Holy Writ and the 
laws of language can make a proposition. 

Before leaving this argument we may say that were it 
shown that men must be baptized because their sins are 
pardoned, it would follow that they must repent for the same 
thing y i. e., because their sins are pardoned. As before stated, 
the preposition for can not mean in order to and because 
of at the same time and place. More than this, for is 
from the Greek preposition eis } which looks forward, not 
backward. Liddell and Scott defines it, "direction toward" 
"motion to" "on" or "into!' It is not used in the sense of 
because of 3. single time in the Bible. In Matt, xxvi : 28, we 
have a similarly constructed sentence both in the Greek 
and in the English scriptures : " For this is my blood of 
the New Testament, which is shed for many for the re- 
mission of sins." The words "for the remission of sins," 
are not only the same as in Acts ii: 38, but they are from 
the same Greek words, eis aphesin amartioon. No one 
believes that Christ shed His blood because the sins of the 
people were remitted, but in order that they might be re- 
mitted. Then if the same set of words means the same 
thing, Peter commanded the Pentecostians to repent and 
be baptized in order that their sins might he remitted, or, 
as in the French Bible, " in order to obtain the remission 
of sins." 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 507 

But an objector says that "when Jesus cured a man of 
his leprosy, ' he charged him to tell no man : but go, and 
show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing ac- 
cording as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them ' 
(Luke v : 14 ; Mark i : 44) — thus showing that for means 
"because of." He was to make the offering because of his 
cleansing." In the first place, we reply that the word for, 
in the phrase " for thy cleansing," is not from eis, the word 
used in Acts ii : 38. In the next place, by consulting the 
law of Moses for the cure of leprosy, it will be seen that 
there was first a cure, and then a ceremonial cleansing 
from leprosy ; and it was in order to this cleansing that the 
cured man was required by the Lord to make the offering. 
Hence, even in this place, the preposition for, though not 
a translation of eis at all, means "in order to," and not "be- 
cause of." And if it did mean " because of," as it comes 
not from eis the objection amounts to nothing. 

But since Mr. Ditzler has come upon the arena, the ar- 
gument based upon "because of," as a meaning of eis, has 
been very generally abandoned in this country. He says : 
"Eis is ahvays prospective, and never retrospective. * * * 
The Baptists are all wrong on eis — making it retrospect- 
ive — 'in consequence of.'" Louisville Debate, p. 307. 
This position is well taken, but it takes away all chance 
of even a respectable quibble on Acts ii : 38, against 
baptism for remission of sins. He says : " Neither re- 
pentance nor baptism is for remission, but conditions 
precedent to doing that which is for remission." P. 295. 
If this were true it could give no relief to his theory. 
How can he get to remission until he passes through the 
conditions precedent to it? But he continues: "The re- 
pentance would as much be for remission as baptism, since 
they are coupled with xac — and — ' repent and be baptized.' 
But it is never for remission of sins. Whatever is for re- 



508 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

mission, of necessity brings remission of sins. Faith does 
this — repentance never. The repentance here as usual pre- 
cedes faith." Ut supra. Repentance is not for remission 
of sins, yet Peter commanded persons to repent and be 
converted, that their sins might be blotted out!! (Acts 
iii : 19.) Wonder what difference there is in remission of 
sins and blotting otct of sins ! But he says repentance pre- 
cedes faith ; and as repentance precedes baptism, and both 
are conditions precedent to faith, which brings remission, 
it follows that they are without faith, and not pleasing to 
God ; for " without faith it is impossible to please him.' 5 
Heb. xi : 6. And as that which is not of faith is sin, such 
repentance and baptism as precedes faith is sin. But this 
reverses the order of the commission — " he that believeth 
and is baptized," not he that is baptized and then believes. 
It also reverses the order of Philip's operations. When 
the Samaritans believed Philip's preaching, they were bap- 
tized ; and when the eunuch demanded baptism, Philip re- 
plied : " If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest." 
No inspired man ever taught that repentance and baptism 
were conditions precedent to faith, or that any one should 
be baptized who did not believe. 

The conversion of the Pentecostians may be regarded 
as an inspired commentary on the commission under which 
the apostles acted. The commission required teaching or 
preaching — Peter preached to Jews, devout men, who were 
present on the occasion. The commission required faith 
or belief — these were cut to the heart when they heard and 
believed what Peter preached. The commission, as re- 
corded by Luke, associated repentance with remission of 
sins ; so did Peter. The commission required believers 
of all nations to be baptized ; so did Peter. The commis- 
sion followed baptism by a promise of salvation — Peter 
made remission of sins the object of repentance and bap- 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



509 



tism. Thus we see how the apostles understood the com- 
mission. 

But an objector says : "Anderson's Translation of Acts 
ii : 47, says : ' The Lord added the saved daily to the 
church.' And as men are added to the church by bap- 
tism, it follows that they were saved before they were 
added by baptism." Anderson believed that the word 
exzAedea, here rendered church, simply meant a local church 
or congregation, and that after they were saved by obedi- 
ence to the gospel they were daily added to the congrega- 
tion, or placed together. Mr. Campbell's compilation of 
Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, renders this verse, 
"And the Lord daily added the saved to the congregation." 
Whether Anderson correctly translated the verse or not, 
no honest man will take advantage of his translation to 
pervert his teaching. T. S. Green, of London, renders the 
passage thus : "And the Lord was adding daily those that 
were being saved." Twofold New Testament. Thus he 
leaves out the word churchy for which there is nothing in 
the original, and is faithful to the participial form and pres- 
ent tense of the Greek. This rendering comes to us from, 
and is supported by, very high authority, and is in har- 
mony with the general teaching of the Bible on the sub- 
ject. It should, therefore, be very carefully considered 
before it is rejected. 

It is a fact beyond controversy that those who complied 
with the terms imposed on the day of Pentecost were par- 
doned at some time of that day. At what time were they 
pardoned ? Were they pardoned when they came together 
that morning ? No, for they believed that Jesus Christ 
was an impostor, and they had crucified Him as such. 
Were they pardoned when Peter began to preach ? Sure- 
ly not, for he accused them with the murder of the Son of 
God, and they believed him drunk with wine. Were they 



5IO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

forgiven when, convinced of their great wrong, they cried 
out, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ? " Such is not 
the style of those who are forgiven. Surely, they did not 
cry out in the anguish of their souls, " Men and brethren, 
what shall we do because God has graciously forgiven us 
all our sins ? " They were charged with the murder of 
Jesus Christ, and they wanted to know how to escape the 
punishment due them as sinners. Did Peter answer the 
question they put to him ? We suppose he did. He 
commanded them to repent, and be baptized in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. As many as 
" gladly received his word were baptized." Now, are they 
pardoned ? No one doubts it. When were they pardoned ? 
When they complied with the conditions specified in the 
command; not before. Sinner, would you be saved? then 
do as they did. The command came fresh from heaven, 
and can not be wrong. 

We base another argument upon the language of Ana- 
nias to Saul : "And now why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be 
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of 
the Lord." Acts xxii : 16. Saul's conversion, though in 
some respects extraordinary, has within it all the elements 
contained in the commission and in the conversions of 
Pentecost. He was a violent persecutor of the people of 
God, and believed Jesus an impostor, and His followers 
worthy of punishment. Jesus presented Himself to him 
and made known the fact that He was truly the Son of 
God. Believing it, he cried out, " Lord, what wilt thou 
have me to do ? " Here would have been a good time to 
have verified the theory of justification by faith alone. Saul 
had the faith, and, if justification was by it alone, he would 
have gladly known the fact. As the Lord did not so in- 
form him, we infer that no such theory was in operation at 
that time. Having delegated the proclamation of the gos- 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



5" 



pel to men, the Lord did not usurp the authority delegated 
to others by telling Saul himself, but tells him where he 
might go and find one competent to furnish the desired 
information — "Arise, and go into the city and it shall be 
told thee what thou must do." Not what you may do or 
can do, if convenient, but what you must do. The Lord 
sent Ananias to answer the inquiry, which he did, saying, 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on 
the name of the Lord." He did not tell Saul to believe, 
for he had been a believer from the time the Lord appeared 
to him in the way, three days before ; nor was he told to 
repent, because he had been truly penitent the same length 
of time ; but the instructions began just where Saul's obe- 
dience had stopped, and at the point necessary to perfect 
it. We stop not to inquire what washed Paul's sins away — 
whether blood, water, or any thing else — sufficient it is for 
us to know that they were not washed away until he was 
baptized. Granting, as we do, that the blood of Christ 
cleanseth from all sin, Paul could not literally come in 
contact with it, but must approach it through some means 
appointed for that purpose. Commenting upon the phrase 
" be baptized and wash away thy sins," Mr. Wesley says : 
" Baptism administered to real penitents is both a means 
and seal of pardon. Nor did God, ordinarily, in the primi- 
tive church, bestow this on any, unless through this means." 
Wesley's Notes. 

Burkitt says : "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins. Here note that sacraments are not empty, insignifi- 
cant signs ; but God, by His grace and blessing, renders 
His own ordinances effectual for these great ends for 
which his wisdom has appointed them : Be baptized and 
wash azvay thy sins. As water cleanseth the body, so the 
blood of Christ, signified by water, washes away the guilt 
of the soul. Where true faith is, together with the pro- 



512 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

fession of it by baptism, there is salvation promised. Mark 
xvi : 1 6. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
Burkitt's Notes. 

But Mr. Campbell says: "Paul's sins were really par- 
doned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of 
the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his 
sins, until he washes them away in the water of baptism." 
Debate with MacCalla, p. 135. 

Yes, Mr. Campbell said this in his debate with MacCalla 
in October of 1823, while he was a Baptist and believed 
and taught as Baptists do ; but when he became a man he 
put away childish things. 

But we are told that Paul was commanded to arise and 
be baptized and wash away his sins by calling on the name 
of the Lord. We respectfully suggest that the language 
will not bear this rendering. The word enexaAeaaftevoz, is, 
1. Aorist, corresponding to the indefinite past tense of Eng- 
lish, and, hence, must indicate a calling which had pre- 
viously been made. Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
away your sins, having called on the name of the Lord. 

We would transpose and paraphrase the passage thus : 
" Having called upon the name of the Lord for informa- 
tion, or to know what to do, He has sent me to tell you ; 
and now why tarry ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
away your sins." The indefinite past tense can not ex- 
press a calling yet to be made. 

"But Paul said to the jailer, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house,' and it is 
not likely he would have given to the jailer a system of 
pardon differing from his own." What are we to do with 
such a passage as this ? Shall we tear it from its context, 
and build a theory of justification by faith alone because 
it says nothing about repentance or baptism ? If so, may 
we not take the language of Ananias to Saul, and con- 






THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 513 

struct a theory of justification by baptism alone because 
he was told to arise and be baptized, and not a word was 
said about faith or repentance ? And may not a third 
party take Peter's language, "Repent, and be converted 
that your sins may _be blotted out," and construct a theory 
of justification upon repentance alone, because faith nor 
baptism is mentioned ? So a fourth party may quote 
Peter on Pentecost, saiyng, Repent, and be baptized, and 
build a theory on these two to the exclusion of faith be- 
cause it is not mentioned, and thus we may have as many 
theories of justification as there are cases of conversion 
recorded. 

We must allow the apostles to adapt their teaching to 
the condition of the taught. When Paul addressed the 
jailer in infidelity — one who believed Jesus an imposter, 
and had Paul and Silas in prison for performing a miracle 
in His name — it was necessary to begin at the beginning ; 
hence, they told him to believe as the first thing necessary, 
and then they spake unto him the word of the Lord ; that 
is, they further developed the plan of salvation to him. 
When Peter addressed believers on the day of Pentecost, 
he did not tell them to do that which they had already done, 
but added what was lacking, " Repent, and be baptized." 
But when Ananias addressed a believing penitent in the 
person of Saul, he did not tell him to believe and repent, 
for both of these he had done ; but he told him to do the 
only thing which, at that stage of his conversion, he 
lacked " Arise, and be baptized." 

But we propose now to show that Paul did impose the 
same conditions upon the jailer that Peter did upon the 
Pentecostians, and that Peter and Paul did not preach dif- 
ferent gospels. Paul said to the jailer : " Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house ; 
and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all 



514 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

that were in his house." Acts xvi : 31, 32. The reader 
will please note the fact that the word of the Lord was 
spoken to the jailer; and if we would know what was re- 
quired of him we must learn what was embraced in the 
word of the Lord. The prophet said : " And many peo- 
ple shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up to the 
mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, 
and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his 
paths ; for out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word 
of the Lord from Jerusalem." Isa. ii : 3. Thus we see 
that the word of the Lord spoken to the jailer was to go 
forth from Jerusalem ; hence, if we can find what went 
forth as the word of the Lord from Jerusalem we may 
know what was preached to the jailer. The Lord said: 
" That repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 
Luke xxiv : 47. The prophet tells us that the word of the 
Lord should go forth from Jerusalem, and the Lord ex- 
plains this by saying it was written that repentance and 
remission of sins should be preached in His name among 
all nations, beginning there. Then how did the word of 
the Lord go forth from Jerusalem ? and how was repent- 
ance and remission of sins preached in the name of Jesus, 
beginning there ? Peter said : " Repent, and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the re- 
mission of sins." This was what went forth as the word 
of the Lord from Jerusalem ; and, as this constituted the 
word of the Lord at Jerusalem, it took the same thing to 
constitute it at the Philippian jail ; and as this was the way 
repentance and remission of sins began to be preached in 
the name of Jesus at Jerusalem, and was to be preached 
among all nations, and as the jailer and all his were a part 
of all nations, it is certainly what was preached as the 
word of the Lord to them. Not only so, but we find the 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



515 



same result produced by the preaching at both places. 
At Jerusalem " they that gladly received his word were 
baptized: and the same day there were added unto them 
about three thousand souls." Acts ii: 41. At the jail 
"he took them the same hour of the night and washed 
their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway." 
Acts xvi : 33. Thus we see that the same gospel was 
preached at both places, and the parties understood and 
obeyed it in the same way. If baptism was not included 
in the word of the Lord spoken to the jailer, and especially 
if it be a mere non-essential, why did he so promptly at- 
tend to it the same hour of the night ? 

Before leaving Paul's case we must attend to another 
objection which comes in our way occasionally : " If bap- 
tism be for the remission of sins, then remission is made 
to depend upon third parties, and the subject is depend- 
ent upon an administrator." Had the Lord been disposed 
to have dispensed with the services of third parties, why 
did he not pardon Saul without sending him off to wait three 
days for Ananias, the third party ? Why did He not par- 
don the devout Cornelius without sending to Joppa for 
Simon Peter, the third party ? Why did He not pardon 
the Ethiopian nobleman without the services of Philip, 
the third party ? God did specially interpose in each of 
these cases, and yet He dispensed not with the services of 
the third party. When an unclean person was to be puri- 
fied under the law, " a clean person shall take hyssop, 
and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and 
upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, 
and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one 
dead, or a grave ; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon 
the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day." 
Num. xix: 18, 19. Thus we see that God's law has ever 
required the services of third parties, or the services of 



5l6 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

one class in behalf of another. But if this objection be 
worth any thing, is the theory of justification by faith alone 
free from it ? Paul tells us that faith comes by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God, and asks : " How shall they 
believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how 
shall they hear without a preacher ?" Rom. x : 14. Then, 
as he can not get faith without a third party, the preacher, 
the difficulty rests with all its weight upon the objector. 
When he gets done preaching to him, if he has faith 
enough, it will not detain him much longer to baptize him 
and make a clean job of it at once. 

"But in a desert he might believe in preaching pre- 
viously heard." Yes ; but the preacher was still present 
when the preaching was done by the third party, and 
when the sinner heard the gospel, then was the time he 
should have obeyed it ; and if he declined to do it, it was 
his misfortune, and God will hold him responsible for op- 
portunities thus slighted, just as he will another man who 
has the same opportunities and dies in place of falling in 
a desert. 

In both cases it is the misfortune of the parties that 
they did not obey the gospel when they had the op- 
portunity of doing so. The man who slighted ten thou- 
sand opportunities of obeying the gospel, until he gets 
into a condition that offers no opportunity, need scarcely 
expect to be held guiltless for slighting the overtures of 
the past. Now is the day of salvation. Now is your 
time — to-morrow to you may never come. 

We come next to examine the epistles, in which are vari- 
ous allusions to our subject. In Paul's letter to the church 
at Rome we have the following very significant paragraph : 
" But ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine 
which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, 
ye became the servants of righteousness." Rom. vi : 17, 18. 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. $lj 

Here we learn that the Romans obeyed a form, system, or 
mould of doctrine, in doing which they were made free 
from sin. 

Having made the subject of a change of heart a theme 
of special examination in another part of our work, we need 
not stop to consider it here. It is sufficient at present to 
state that all acceptable obedience comes from the heart. 
God is not mocked, but seeks such to worship Him as 
worship Him in spirit and in truth. He that worships 
God to be seen of men, to gain popular applause, profes- 
sional patronage, the hand of a lady, the approval of a com- 
panion, is. but mocking Him with that which is an abom- 
ination in His sight. The Romans obeyed from the heart 
the form of doctrine delivered them. They did not obey 
the doctrine, but they obeyed the form of it. In order to 
recognize the form or likeness of any thing, we must first 
be acquainted with that of which it is a form ; e. g. y to rec- 
ognize the form or likeness of a man, we must first be ac- 
quainted with the man of whom it is a likeness. Then, to 
recognize the form of doctrine obeyed by the Romans, we 
must know the doctrine itself. Paul says : " Moreover, 
brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached 
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye 
stand ; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory 
what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also re- 
ceived, how that Christ died for our sins according to the 
Scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again 
the third day according to the Scriptures." I Ct>r. xv : 1-4. 

Paul says he delivered to the Corinthians that which he 
received, and he says the Romans obeyed the form of doc- 
trine delivered them. He further says that he preached 
the gospel to the Corinthians, and we suppose he preached 
the same gospel at Rome which he preached at Corinth, 



5 1 8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

for he invokes the curses of heaven upon himself, or an 
angel, should either preach another gospel. Gal. i : 8. 

Then, what was the gospel preached by Paul ? In its 
facts it was: "that Christ died for our sins according to 
the Scriptures ; that he was buried, and that he rose again 
the third day according to the Scriptures." These three 
facts are the gospel which Paul preached, the form of 
which the Romans obeyed, in doing of which they were 
made free from sin. We are now prepared to look for 
the form. 

Paul says : " If we be dead with Christ, we believe that 
we shall also live with him ; knowing that Christ being 
raised from the dead dieth no more ; death hath no more 
dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin 
once ; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise 
reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but 
alive unto God." Rom. vi : 8— 1 1. Then the sinner dies 
unto sin — Christ died unto sin once. Going back to the 
third verse, we read : " Know ye not, that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
newness of life ; for if we have been planted together in 
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness 
of his resurrection." Christ died for sin — the sinner must 
die to sin. Christ was buried — the sinner must be buried 
with him hy baptism ; Christ was raised up from the dead — 
the sinner must be raised up from his baptism into death 
to walk in newness of life. Thus they are planted in the 
likeness of His death, and, raised to newness of life, should 
live in expectation of a final resurrection like His. 

There is another thought connected with baptism into 
Christ's death. We are not baptized into Christ's death 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 519 

literally, but we are baptized into the benefits of His death ; 
this being so, we can reach the benefits of His death only 
through baptism as the means of reaching it. A burial 
with Christ by baptism is the subject introduced in the 
beginning of the chapter, and Paul labors it and its results 
until he comes to the language quoted : " You have obeyed 
[in baptism] the form of doctrine delivered you [what was 
the effect of this obedience?] ; being then made free from 
sin, ye became the servants of righteousness," 

But we would next call attention to the fact that out of 
Christ there is no salvation. All the blessings of the gos- 
pel are to be realized in Him, none out of Him : " If any 
man be in Christ, he is a new creature : old things have 
passed away ; behold, all things have become new." 2 Cor. 
v: 17. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto 
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." Ver. 19. 
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the 
forgiveness of sins." Col. i : 14 ; Gal. i : 7. " Ye are com- 
plete in him who is the head of all principality and power." 
Col. ii : 10. " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the 
godhead bodily." Ver. 9. " It pleased the Father that in 
him should all fullness dwell." Col. i: 19. "Who hath 
blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in 
Christ." Eph. i : 3. All things are gathered in Christ. 
Ver. 10. We trust in him. Ver. 12. Our redemption is 
in Christ. Rom. iii : 24. While living, the Christian has 
hope in Christ. 1 Cor. xv: 19. When dead, the Christian 
sleeps in Christ. 1 Thess. iv : 16. Will be made alive from 
the dead in Christ. 1 Cor. xv : 22. 

Seeing, then, that all the blessings of the gospel are in 
Christ, and that if we enjoy them we must get into Christ, 
the question next in order is, How do we get into Christ? 
Paul says : " Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death.'' 



520 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Rom. vi : 3. And, again : " For as many of you as were 
baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal. iii : 27. Of 
course, we are not speaking of baptism to a faithless im- 
penitent, for we have labored the antecedents sufficiently to 
be understood on these subjects. By the above passages 
we find baptism to be the act by which a proper subject 
puts on Christ, where all spiritual blessings are. 

Luther says : " This is not done by changing of a garment, 
or by any laws or works, but by a new birth, and by the 
renewing of the inward man, which is done in baptism, as 
Paul saith : 'All ye that are baptized have put on Christ.' 
Also : 'According to his mercy he saved us by the washing 
of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.' Tit. iii : 5. 
For, besides that, they who are baptized are regenerated 
and renewed by the Holy Ghost to a heavenly righteous- 
ness and to eternal life, there ariseth in them new and holy 
affections, as the fear of God, true faith, and assured hopes* 
etc. There beginneth in them also a new will ; and this is 
to put on Christ truly and according to the gospel. There- 
fore, the righteousness of the law, or our own works, is not 
given unto us in baptism, but Christ himself is our gar- 
ment. Now, Christ is no law, no lawgiver, no works, but a 
divine and an inestimable gift, whom God hath given unto 
us, that he might be our Justifier, our Saviour, and our 
Redeemer. Wherefore, to be appareled with Christ ac- 
cording to the gospel, is not to be appareled with the law 
or with works, but with an incomparable gift — that is, with 
remission of sins, righteousness, peace, consolation, joy of 
spirit, salvation, life, and Christ himself." Luther on Gala- 
tians in Campbell on Baptism, p. 261. 

"For 'as many as are baptized into Christ,' in his name 
'have' thereby 'put on Christ' (Gal. iii: 27) — that is, are 
mystically united to Christ, and made one with him. For 
'by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body' (1 Cor 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 52 I 

xii : 13) — namely, the church, 'the body of Christ' (Eph. iv : 
12). . From which spiritual, vital union with Him proceeds 
the influence of His grace on those that are baptized ; as 
from our union with the church, a share in all its privi- 
leges, and in all the promises Christ has made to it." Doc- 
trinal Tracts, p, 248. 

But we have another argument upon Paul's seven units, 
of which baptism is one. He says : " There is one body 
and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your 
calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and 
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in 
you all." Eph. iv : 4-6. Having shown in the preceding 
chapters of this epistle that in the death of Jesus Christ 
God had broken down the middle wall which had long 
separated Jews from Gentiles, that He might make of 
twain one new church, reconciling both Jews and Gentiles 
in one body by the cross (ii : 1 1-20), the apostle's argument 
culminated in the grand fact that there is now one body, 
or church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles — one 
Spirit sealing both Jews and Gentiles — one hope anima- 
ting both Jews and Gentiles — one Lord, who died for all, 
both Jews and Gentiles — one faith common to Jews and 
Gentiles — one baptism enjoined upon all, whether Jews 
or Gentiles — one God and Father of all, if Christians, 
whether Jews or Gentiles. Now, are all the items of this 
compendium of doctrine for the remission of sins ? 

1. We are to be reconciled to God in one body, and 
Jesus gave Himself for it. Eph. ii : 16. 

2. We must all drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. xii: 13), 
and unless we have the Spirit of Christ we are none of 
his. Rom. viii : 9. 

3. We are saved by hope. Rom. viii : 24. 

4. Christ the one Lord died for man, and there is no 
salvation in any other name. Acts iv : 12. 

44 



522 THE GOSPEL. PLAN OF SALVATION. 

5. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb. 
xi : 6. 

6. Baptism doth also now save us. 1 Pet. iii : 21. 

7. It is God that justifieth. Rom. viii : 33. 

Now, are all these grand pillars in the spiritual temple 
essential save one which is unimportant ? " But this is 
spiritual baptism." Then let us turn quaker, and repu- 
diate water baptism, so that Paul may be consistent in 
saying "there is one baptism." The language "there is 
one baptism" just as clearly implies that there is but one 
baptism, as does the phrase there is one God imply that 
there is but one God. But the one Spirit is specifically 
mentioned in its own place ; then why afterward mention 
one baptism, and refer it back to Spirit which fills its own 
place ? Alexander Hall once made a remark on the use 
of prepositions as follows : " We now present five preposi- 
tions : in, by, with, for, and into. Upon these five prepo- 
sitions we predicate five propositions, viz : that we are 
baptized in something, by something, with something, for 
something, and into something ; and that all these refer to 
water baptism. They are, 1st, in the name of the Lord 
Jesus (Acts x : 48 ; xix : 5) ; 2d, by the Spirit of God (1 
Cor. xii : 13) — i. e., according to its authority or directions ; 
3d, with water (Matt, iii : 11, should be in) ; 4th, for the 
remission of sins (Acts ii : 38); 5th, into Christ (Gal. iii: 
27); into one body (1 Cor. xii: 13). 

" Here, then, we have these five relations clearly ex- 
pressed by these five prepositions ; and thus we are baptized 
.in the name of Christ, by the Spirit of God, with [in] water, 
for the remission of sins, and into the one body, which are 
all one and the same baptism — the same ordinance which 
brought three thousand penitent believers into the king- 
dom of God on the day of Pentecost." Gospel Proclama- 
tion, vol. ii, p. 342. 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 523 

In this summary Paul groups the great fundamental pil- 
lars of the Christian religion ; and that the one baptism is 
in water, has been the opinion of the learned until the bap- 
tismal controversy became rife in modern times. Dr. Clark's 
note on this passage is as follows : "Oiie baptism — adminis- 
tered in the name of the Holy Trinity ; indicative of the 
influences, privileges, and effects of the Christian religion." 
Wesley's note is composed of three words : " One outward 
baptism." In his sermo?i tipon the church, however, he is 
more ample. He says : "There is one baptism, which is the 
outward sign our one Lord has been pleased to appoint 
of all that inward and spiritual grace which he is continu 
ally bestowing upon his church. Some, indeed, have been 
inclined to interpret this in a figurative sense, as if it re- 
ferred to the baptism of the Holy Spirit Vhich the apos- 
tles received on the day of Pentecost, and which, in a lower 
degree, is given to all believers. But it is a stated rule, in 
interpreting Scripture, never to depart from the plain, lit- 
eral sense unless it implies an absurdity ; and, besides, if 
we thus understood it, it would be a needless repetition, as 
being included in ' there is one Spirit.' " Mr. Rice, in his 
debate with Mr. Campbell (p. 264), says : " This one bap- 
tism is an ordinance administered with water, in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, by 
an ordained minister of the gospel." Thus we see the very 
highest authority understands Paul to refer to water bap- 
tism when he says " there is one baptism ; " indeed, we 
suppose no one ever thought of any thing else until this 
passage was brought into the recent controversy on the 
design of baptism. 

But this is not all upon this subject. The apostle says : 
" Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and 
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Eph. 



524 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF' SALVATION. 

v: 25, 26. Christ gave Himself for the church, that He 
might sanctify and cleanse it how? With the washing 
of water by the Word. Not a washing with the Word — 
the washing of water by the Word ; that is, in obedience 
to it, or in accordance with it — just as we are baptized by 
one Spirit into one body ; that is, in obedience to it, and 
in harmony with its teaching. That the washing of water 
by the Word, here, is baptism, Watson, Wesley, Clark, 
Macknight, Stuart, and all other commentators, teach, as 
far as we have been able to examine. Then, if baptism 
be the means by which the church is sanctified and 
cleansed, how shall it be cleansed without the means ? 
Surely, it can not be. If baptism be not the washing 
of water alluded to, what other washing of water is there 
connected with spiritual cleansing to which Paul may have 
referred ? " But it is the church that is cleansed, not the 
people before they enter it." Yes, and Christ gave Him- 
self for the church before it was a church ; so the church 
is cleansed by cleansing the material of which it is made. 
Does any one suppose men and women are to enter the 
church uncleansed, or unpardoned, and then be cleansed 
by the washing of water? The objector might be willing 
to apply this theory to infants, but it would not do for 
men ; and it would involve the necessity of rebaptizing 
even those baptized in infancy. But the creeds will not 
allow the theory, for they all teach that the washing with 
water brings them into the church. On page 247, Doc- 
trinal Tracts, we find a comment on the verse under con- 
sideration, as follows : "And the virtue of this free gift, 
the merits of Christ's life and death are applied to us in 
baptism. ' He gave himself for the church, that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
word' (Eph. v: 25, 26) ; namely, in baptism, the ordinary 
instrument of our justification. Agreeably to this, our 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



525 



church prays, in the baptismal office, that the person to 
be baptized may be ' washed and sanctified by the Holy 
Ghost, and, being delivered from God's wrath, receive re- 
mission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of 
His heavenly washing. ' " 

Again, the apOstle says : "Ye are complete in him, which 
is the head of all principality and power ; in whom also 
ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without 
hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
circumcision of Christ ; buried with him in baptism, where- 
in also ye are risen with him through the faith of the oper- 
ation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And 
you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of 
your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having 
forgiven you all trespasses." Col. ii : 10-13. Here we 
learn that the Colossians put off the body of the sins of 
the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, in being buried 
with him in baptism ; and thus they were forgiven all tres- 
passes. On this passage Mr. Watson remarks : " Here 
baptism is also made the initiatory rite of the new dis- 
pensation, that by which the Colossians were joined to 
Christ, in whom they are said to be complete." Insti- 
tutes, vol. ii, p. 621. If baptism be the act which joins 
us to Christ, then we ask whether or not we can be saved 
until we are joined to Christ ? If not, we can not be saved 
until baptized, that we may be joined to Christ. 

But the apostle says : " Not by works of righteousness 
which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved 
us ; by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Ghost." Tit. iii : 5. He saved us how ? By the 
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 
What is this washing of regeneration ? It can not be the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost, for that is specifically men- 
tioned. The Spirit and the water are not the same, for 



526 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

" there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, 
and the water, and the blood." 1 John v : 8. Then, if 
this washing of regeneration is not baptism, what is it ? 
Wesley and Whitby call this " the laver of regeneration." 
Clark says : " Undoubtedly the apostle here means bap- 
tism." Watson, Macknight, Alford, Bloomfield, Stuart, 
Smith, and Walt, say it means baptism. Well, what if it 
does mean baptism ? Only this : Paul says we are saved 
by it. He saved us by the washing of regeneration and 
renewing of the Holy Ghost. Wall says : " The washing 
of regeneration (Tit. iii : 5) is the washing of baptism." 
Vol. i, p. 70. 

" But baptism is a work." Yes ; so is faith. " Jesus 
answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, 
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." John vi : 29. 
Hence, if baptism may be set aside because it is a work, 
then faith goes the same road. " But faith is the work of 
God." Yes, and so is baptism, in the same sense, the 
work of God. They are both acts of man, but the works 
of God by authority, because God has ordained them. 
Paul says : " We are his workmanship, created in Christ 
Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained 
that we should walk in them." Eph. ii : 10. The works 
which God has ordained are not the procuring cause of 
our salvation, but according to His mercy He saved us 
through just such means as He saw fit to appoint ; and 
Paul says they were the washing of regeneration and re- 
newing of the Holy Spirit. 

We come now to examine the types and shadows of for- 
mer dispensations, and their antitypes and substances in 
the Christian dispensation. We might begin with Adam, 
and show that from him until the coming of Christ there 
were numerous single types of Him. Moses, as lawgiver, 
mediator, etc., was a type of Christ. Aaron, as high-priest, 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



527 



was a type of Christ. But there were great systems of 
types adumbrating the deliverance of men from the guilt 
and pollution of sin under the gospel. Some of these we 
will briefly examine. 

God proposed to save Noah and his family from the sin- 
cursed world with which he was identified prior to the del- 
uge. With a view to this end, He revealed to Noah the 
plan by which his deliverance was to be effected. Noah 
believed it, and Paul says : " By faith Noah, being warned 
of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared 
an ark to the saving of his house ; by the which he con- 
demned the world and became heir of the righteousness 
which is by faith." Heb. xi : 7. Faith was the great prin- 
ciple which moved Noah. Faith alone, however, did not 
save him, but, moved with. fear, he prepared an ark to the 
saving of himself and family. Peter says : " Once the long- 
suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark 
was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved 
by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth 
also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) 
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. hi: 20, 21. 
The words like figure, in the above quotation, are from the 
Greek antitupon, which should be rendered antitype ; thus: 
the antitype whereof baptism doth also 7tow save us. Here 
Peter says in plain terms that baptism saves us, and that 
it is the antitype of Noah's salvation in the ark by water. 
Now, if baptism does not save us from sin, from what does 
it save us ? It does not save us from temporal punishment, 
such as persecution, insult, hunger, sickness, death, for the 
baptized man is as subject to these as the unbaptized. 
Nor can Peter allude to final salvation, for he says baptism 
now saves us. Then, if baptism does not save from sin, 
we repeat the question, with emphasis, from what does it 



528 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

save us ? It does not save us from the filth of the flesh, 
for it is not a mere fleshly washing, but has to do with the 
conscience. " But it is the answer of a good conscience, 
and hence the conscience must be good before baptism." 
Waiving any objection to this rendering for the present, 
we inquire vvhat is meant by a good conscience? Certainly 
a good conscience does not always imply that he who has 
it is a pardoned man. Paul had a good Gonscience when 
he was killing Christians ; after his conversion he says : 
" I have lived in all good conscience before God until this 
day." Acts xxiii : i. Yet he had to be pardoned, and' 
says : " But I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly 
in unbelief." I Tim. i : 13. Then all that can be claimed for 
a good conscience is, that its possessor is an honest man ; 
and we are quite willing to grant that such he must be, in 
order to acceptably obey God in baptism or any thing else. 
But the rendering might be improved, perhaps, by rendering 
it seeking of a good conscience ; and we know not how a man 
might seek a good conscience more effectually than by be- 
ing baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission 
of his sins. If he were as correctly taught as the eunuch, 
he would likely have a good conscience when done. 

" Well but Noah was a good man before he was saved in 
the ark by water ; hence we must be Christians before we 
are baptized." If this proves any thing against baptism for 
remission, it proves just as much against faith ; for Noah 
was as good a man before he had faith in the plan of his 
delivery as he was after the deluge, or when he was in the 
ark. Hence that which proves too much proves nothing 
at all. Watson says : " It is thus that we see how St. Peter 
preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah in 
preparing the ark as an act of faith by which he was justi- 
fied, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which 
is also obviously an act of faith, in order to the remission 






THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



529 



of sins or the obtaining a good conscience before God." 
Institutes, vol. ii, pp. 624, 625. 

Wesley says: "The antitype whereof — the thing typified 
by the ark, even baptism, now saveth us. That is, through 
the water of baptism we are saved from the sin which over- 
whelms the world as a flood ; not indeed the bare outward 
sign, but the inward grace — a divine consciousness that 
both our persons and our actions are accepted through 
Him who died and rose again for us." Wesley's Notes. 

Clark says : " Noah believed in God, walked uprightly 
before Him, and found grace in His sight ; he obeyed 
Him in building the ark, and God made it the means of 
his salvation from the waters of the deluge. Baptism im- 
plies a consecration and dedication of the soul and body to 
God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He who is faith- 
ful to his baptismal covenant, taking God through Christ, 
by the eternal Spirit, for his portion, is saved here from 
his sins, and, through the resurrection of Christ from the 
dead, has the well-grounded hope of eternal glory." Com- 
mentary on 1 Pet. iii : 21. 

" Baptism doth now save us if we live answerable there- 
to — if we repent, believe, and obey the gospel ; supposing 
this, as it admits us into the church here, so into glory 
hereafter." Doctrinal Tracts, p. 249. 

But we are told the word rupos, rendered filth in this 
verse (1 Pet. iii : 21), means sin; and hence the parenthet- 
ical clause negatives the idea of baptism saving from sin ; 
thus, " not the putting away sin." Let us see about this. 

Liddell and Scott : "Rupos — dirt, filth, dirtiness." 

Pickering: "Rupos — dirt, foulness, scurf; metaphoric- 
ally, avariciousness ; also, sealing-wax." 

Donnigan : "Rupos — filth ; metaphorically, sordid ava- 
rice," etc. 

Rupos may sometimes, metaphorically, mean sin, but we 
45 



530 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

are bound by the laws of exegesis to give its obvious mean- 
ing unless it involves an absurdity. No one will say that 
it does this here ; hence it must simply mean filth, espe- 
cially as it is qualified by the word flesh— filth of the flesh. 
Baptism is not for the removal of this, but has to do with 
the conscience. 

Peter remembered the commission given by the Lord — 
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved " — and 
commanded the Pentecostians to repent, and be baptized 
for the remission of sins ; hence he understood baptism to 
be for remission of sins, and hence, with great propriety, 
could say, " Baptism doth also now save us." Save us 
how ? From our sins. 

After the deluge the world was again peopled by the de- 
scendants of Noah, and they again became wicked ; but 
He had entered into covenant not to a second time destroy 
the world by water ; hence, finding Abram righteous before 
Him, he determined to separate him from the wicked peo- 
ple and of him make to Himself a great nation. In due 
time Isaac was born to Abraham, and then Jacob was born 
to Isaac, and to Jacob was born twelve sons, who became 
heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. After a time, by their 
wickedness, they became slaves in Egypt, where, notwith- 
standing their sore oppression, they rapidly increased, un- 
til Pharaoh, fearing for the safety of his throne, issued an 
order that all male children born of Hebrew mothers should 
be put to death. Pending this order, Moses was born, and 
hid by his mother until she could conceal him no longer ; 
she placed him in an ark on the river, where his sister lin- 
gered to see the result. Pharaoh's daughter found the 
child and' adopted him as her own, and thus he was 
saved from death by the decree of her father. " By faith 
Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called 
the son of Pharaoh's daughter ; choosing rather to suffer 






THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 531 

affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures 
of sin for a season ; esteeming the reproaches of Christ 
greater riches than the treasures in Egypt ; for he had re- 
spect unto the recompense of the reward. By faith he for- 
sook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king ; for he en- 
dured as seeing him who is invisible. Through faith he 
kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that 
destroyed the first-born should touch them. By faith they 
passed through the Red Sea as by dry land, which the 
Egyptians essaying to do were drowned." Heb. xi : 24- 
29. 

In due time God appeared to Moses and revealed to him 
His purpose to deliver the Hebrews through him ; "And 
Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe 
me, nor hearken unto my voice : for they will say, The Lord 
hath not appeared unto thee. And the Lord said unto 
him, What is that in thine hand ? And he said, A rod. And 
he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, 
and it became a serpent ; and Moses fled from before it. 
And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth thy hand, and 
take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand and caught 
it, and it became a rod in his hand : that they may believe 
that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, 
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto 
thee." Ex. iv : 1-5. By this sign, and two others which 
we have not space to mention, God enabled Moses to bear 
witness to his brethren that he was sent of God, that they 
might believe. Moses went to them and delivered the mes- 
sage, confirming it by signs which God had enabled him to 
perform in their presence. They believed the message 
given them by Moses, and, with full confidence in Moses, 
they turned their backs upon their former taskmasters and 
set forward on their journey toward Canaan. After a 
time they came to the Red Sea, and, finding themselves 



532 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

closely pursued by their late masters, they murmured at 
Moses for bringing them out of Egypt to die in the wil- 
derness. But Moses replied : " Fear ye not, stand still, 
and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will show to 
you to-day ; for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to-day, 
ye shall see them again no more forever." Ex. xiv: 13. 
Moses stretched his arm and raised his rod over the sea — 
the waters were divided, and stood as walls on either side ; 
the people moved forward, the cloud overshadowed them, 
and they landed safely on the opposite shore. The Egyp- 
tians pursued them and were drowned in the sea ; seeing 
which the children of Israel sang a song of deliverance and 
rejoiced, believing in God and His servant Moses. But 
though their enemies were gone, they were still far from 
Canaan ; and for forty years they were in a state of 
probation, until, of the male adults who crossed the Red 
Sea, only Caleb and Joshua remained alive. Under the 
lead of these faithful men, Joshua being chief, they crossed 
the river Jordan and entered the land of Canaan — the in- 
heritance promised to their fathers. 

Touching the leading features of this narrative, Paul 
says : " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be 
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; and did all eat the same 
spiritual meat ; and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; 
for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them : 
and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God 
was not well pleased ; for they were overthrown in the 
wilderness. Now these things were our examples." 1 Cor. 
x: 1-6. 

Let us now gather up the chief .features of this system 
of types, and see their application to the antitype : 

1. The children of Israel became slaves in Egypt by 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



533 



their own wickedness — men become servants of sin by in- 
dulgence in crime. 

2. God heard the groanings of His people in Egypt and 
provided for their deliverance — God so loved the world 
that He gave His Son to die for them. 

3. Moses was the deliverer of the children of Israel — 
Jesus is our deliverer. 

4. Pharaoh feared for the safety of his throne and or- 
dered all male children born of Hebrew mothers to be put 
to death — when Jesus was born, Herod feared for the 
safety of his throne and sent and slew all the male children 
from two years old and under. 

5. God preserved Moses from death by Pharaoh's de- 
cree — God sent Joseph with the infant Jesus into Egypt, 
there to remain until Herod was dead, and thus saved him 
from death by Herod's decree. 

6. Moses was enabled to perform miracles in confirma- 
tion of his mission, that the people might believe that God 
had sent him — " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the 
presence of his disciples which are not written in this 
book ; but these are written that ye might believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye 
might have life through his name." John xx : 30, 31. 

7. Moses, through Aaron, made known to the Israelites 
the plan of their delivery, and they believed it, for Paul 
says they did every thing by faith — Jesus required His 
apostles to preach the gospel to every creature in all the 
world, that eveiy one might believe it ; for faith comes by 
hearing, and without faith it is impossible to please God. 

8. The Israelites were required to quit serving the 
Egyptians and turn away from them — Jesus required the 
people every-where to repent, turn away from the serv- 
ice of sin. 

9. The Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud 



534 



THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



and in the sea — Peter commanded the people to be bap- 
tized, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of 
sins. 

io. The Egyptian task-masters of the Israelites were 
left just where the people were baptized unto Moses, and 
they saw them no more — those baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, leave their sins just 
where they are baptized. 

ii. The Israelites rejoiced in their deliverance on the 
shore after their baptism — as soon as the eunuch was bap- 
tized he went on his way rejoicing. 

12. The Israelites were not secure in Canaan as soon as 
baptized, but had to be faithful to God or die short of the 
promised land — those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, though freed from past sins, are 
not in heaven, but must live a life of devotion to God or be 
lost at last. 

13. The Israelites who remained faithful to God through 
their period of probation were conducted across the Jordan 
and into the land of Canaan, the inheritance promised to 
their fathers — those Christians who remain faithful to God 
through life will be conducted across the Jordan of death 
into heaven, the' everlasting Canaan which God has pre- 
pared for them that love Him. 

Thus we have presented, as briefly as possible, the more 
important features of this great system of types, omitting, 
for want of room, many things which would have been of 
interest to the reader ; but the great point to which we 
would especially direct his attention at present is the time 
when the Israelites were freed from their enemies, and the 
corresponding time when we are freed from sin. We are 
told that men must be saved from their sins before they 
are baptized — i. e., that they are pardoned as soon as they 
believe on Jesus Christ. If so, then there is no fitness in 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 535 

this type. The Jews believed in the plan of their delivery 
when it was presented, otherwise they would not have set 
out under the lead of Moses ; but they were not saved from 
their enemies at that time. Moses specifically locates the 
time of their salvation. " Stand still and see the salvation 
of the Lord, which he will show to you to-day" (Ex. xiv : 
13) — not did show you back in the place where you be- 
lieved. And what was the salvation shown them that day? 
" The Egyptians whom ye have seen to-day, ye shall see 
them again no more forever." Ut supra. Where did they 
leave these enemies ? In the sea where they were bap- 
tized. "Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the 
hand of the Egyptians." Ver. 30. Language could not 
more definitely locate the time of their salvation upon the 
day of their baptism than it- here does. Then, if there be 
any fitness in type and antitype, we must be saved from 
our sins when we are baptized, not before. When a type 
spells the word God, the antitype can not spell devil ; so 
when the type says saved in baptism, the antitype can not 
say saved by faith alone before baptism. 

No one denies that the salvation of the Israelites from 
bondage was a type of our salvation from sin, and that 
their baptism in the cloud and sea was a type of our bap- 
tism ; but some seek to evade the force of the argument 
by saying that God recognized the Israelites as His people 
when He appeared to Moses in the burning bush ; and as 
this was before their baptism, we must be God's people be- 
fore we are baptized. But if this objection amounts to any 
thing against baptism for remission of sins, it amounts to 
just as much against faith, for the Lord had not then re- 
vealed the plan of their delivery, but had then appeared to 
Moses for the purpose of revealing it to him. The Israelites 
knew nothing about it. So they were God's people before 
they had faith, as well as before they were baptized. In- 



536 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

deed, they were God's national people before the birth of 
Moses ; hence, if we must be God's people at the same 
time they were, it follows that we must have been God's 
people before Jesus, the antitype of Moses, was born. 
This would be Calvinism sublimated. The objector for- 
gets that the type was in the salvation of the Israelites from 
Egyptian bondage, hence we can not go behind the type for 
impressions in the antitype. 

In debate upon this subject once, our opponent replied 
that there was no remission of sins in the deliverance of 
the Israelites, and as there was no remission in the type 
there could be none in the antitype ; yet he freely quoted, 
"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so 
must the Son of man be lifted up ; that whosoever believ- 
eth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 
iii : 14, 15. Now, was there any remission of sins in the 
brazen serpent placed on the pole by Moses ? Surely not ; 
yet it could represent his system of justification by faith 
alone, as he thought. The idea that a figure can represent 
nothing not in the figure itself would simply destroy all 
figures. The serpent on the pole could not be a type of 
Christ unless Christ became a serpent ; a lamb could not 
be a type of Christ until Christ is shown to have been a 
sheep. We dislike to dignify such an objection with a 
reply, but when great men make such objections, others 
may think there is something in them. 

It was our original purpose to have followed these types 
through the Tabernacle of the wilderness and the consecra- 
tion of a Jewish priest as types of the more perfect Taber- 
nacle and the consecration of a Christian priest, but want 
of space compels us to forego the pleasure of doing so. 

We must notice some of the more prominent objections 
urged by those who oppose our teaching. First, we are 
told that "there are two kingdoms, one visible and the 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 537 

other invisible — that the visible kingdom is the visible 
church, and is for the visible man. Baptism is purely a 
visible act of the visible man, who is pardoned when bap- 
tized, and thus introduced into the visible kingdom. This 
is formal pardon, indicative of real pardon which was se- 
cured by faith — -a purely mental act, an act of the invisible 
man by which it was introduced into the invisible kingdom 
when he believed. And whether the visible man is ever 
justified and introduced by baptism into the visible king- 
dom, yea or nay, is of but little importance as to the ulti- 
mate happiness and final salvation of the spiritual man." 

This is substantially the theory of the two kingdoms, 
and we will examine it briefly. If it be true, it is evident 
that there are two churches or two kingdoms governed by 
the same King at the same time. And as the church is 
the body, and Jesus "is the head of the body, the church" 
(Col. i : 18), it follows that He is the head of two bodies at 
the same time, or one of the bodies has no head, or if each 
has a head one of them has a human head. John saw a 
beast having seven heads to one body (Rev. xiii : i); but here 
we have a different beast — two bodies to one head. When 
Paul said " there is one body" (Eph. iv : 4), and again, "now 
are there many members yet but one body" (1 Cor. xii : 20), 
he was not aware of the existence of one of the bodies 
contemplated in this theory. 

Once more : The church is said to be the " bride, the 
Lamb's wife." According to this theory, the Lamb has 
two wives at the same time, and one of them invisible ; 
hence, He would be unfit for a bishop in the church, to say 
nothing of its head, for Paul tells us that a bishop must be 
" the husband of one wife." I Tim. iii : 2. These visible 
and invisible brides must both belong to one husband, or 
one of them has either no husband or an illegitimate one. 
"There is one body and one spirit" (Eph. iv : 4) in this 



538 



THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



body ; and as one spirit can not animate two bodies at the 
same time, it follows that one of them is without a spirit 
(unless it be a human spirit) ; and as James tells us that 
"the body without the spirit is dead" (Jas. ii : 26), it fol- 
lows that one of these is a dead body. 

It will be remembered that at the time the subject be- 
lieves, the invisible man is introduced into the invisible 
kingdom of the Lord, and baptism is the only way of intro- 
ducing the visible man into the Lord's visible kingdom. 
Then, if a man believed twenty years ago, and by that act 
had the inner man introduced into the invisible kingdom 
at that time, and he has not been baptized until to-day, 
where was the visible man from that time until this ? It 
was not in the visible kingdom, for it could only enter this 
kingdom by baptism ; and as he was unbaptized, of course 
he was not in it. He was not in the invisible kingdom, 
for that was prepared for the invisible man, and is in 
heaven and he upon the earth. Then, we repeat the ques- 
tion, where is the visible man from the time faith is exer- 
cised until he is baptized ? As we have seen that he is in 
neither of the theoretical kingdoms of the Lord, he must 
be in the dominion of Satan, and if so, then there must be 
a singular partnership between the Lord and his satanic 
majesty in the same person, the former having the invis- 
ible and the latter the visible man from the time he believes 
until he is baptized. Well might Paul ask : " What concord 
hath Christ with Belial?" 2 Cor. vi : 15. 

Once more : It will be remembered that the locality of 
the visible kingdom is on the earth, and that of the invis- 
ible kingdom is in heaven ; and it will be admitted that 
the visible man is the dwelling-place of the invisible 
through life, and their separation takes place only at death. 
How, therefore, can the invisible man be translated to 
heaven, the place of the invisible kingdom, by faith or 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



539 



otherwise, and the body remain upon the earth during life, 
and no separation take place ? When Paul said he was 
" willing to be absent from the body and be present with 
the Lord" (2 Cor. v: 8), he had not learned the theory by 
which he could be with the body and the Lord at the 
same time. In this theory we have the very anomalous 
idea of a king having two kingdoms in different localities, 
the same subjects being in both at the same time. 

But we come now to examine the foundation of the 
theory. Is faith purely mental, or does it require the co- 
operative exercise of mind and body ? Paul says : " Faith 
comes by hearing." Rom. x: 17. How do persons hear? 
Jesus quoted the prophet thus : " For this people's heart 
is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and 
their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should 
see with their eyes, hear with their ears," etc. Matt, 
xiii : 15. 

Then, if faith comes by hearing, and hearing is done 
with the ear, and the ear is a part of the physical or visible 
man, it is certain that the faith of which Paul spake is not 
purely mental. But the objector quotes Paul again : "With 
the heart (mind) man believeth unto righteousness." Rom. 
x: 10. True, indeed; but how does he obtain possession 
of what he believes ? Surely, through his senses. At the 
time faith is exercised, or is present, there has been an ex- 
ercise of mind and body, and hence the theory is false that 
would justify the invisible man at that time, because noth- 
ing but mind had entered into the service. 

Once more : The brain is as much the organ of the 
mind as is the eye the organ of sight, or the ear the organ 
of hearing, and we are as much compelled to use the brain 
in thought as we are the eye # to see or the ear to hear. 
Then, if we are compelled to think in the act of believing, 
and the brain, a part of the physical and visible man, is 



540 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

used in thought, it follows that to have faith there must be 
an exercise of mind and body. 

But is baptism purely a physical act ? If so, why will 
not the advocates of the theory baptize a maniac in the 
absence of mind ? If a man's reason is dethroned, no one 
will say he may be baptized. But why not? If there is 
nothing mental connected with its validity, surely he 
would be as fit a subject then as at any other time. In 
the administration of infant sprinkling they are more con- 
sistent, for here, indeed, there is nothing mental to accom- 
pany it. But even here they reverse the order of the 
theory. In the case of adults the invisible man is first 
saved by faith, then the visible by baptism; but here the 
visible man (infant) is introduced into the visible kingdom, 
and the invisible or spiritual man is left in the devil's ki7ig- 
dom for years, perhaps for life. 

If we wish to baptize a man, we must first operate on 
his mind or invisible man until we convince his judgment 
that it is his duty to submit to it. When we have done 
this, the mind transmits the will to act, through the nerves 
to the muscles ; they contract, in obedience to the will, 
upon the bones, and thus by a co-operation of mind and 
body the man steps forward. But whenever the mind 
ceases to co-operate the process is at once arrested. 
Hence, baptism can not be performed as an acceptable 
service to God without the action of mind and body. 
There is no foundation for the objection, and it therefore 
amounts to nothing. 

But another very common objection is that when Jesus 
healed the woman of her plague, He said : " Daughter, thy 
faith hath made thee whole : go in peace, and be whole of 
thy plague." Mark v : 34. And it is insisted that this 
miraculous healing from disease must constitute the basis of 
a theory of conversion. We insist that no one has a right 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 54I 

to select one miracle and make it the basis of a theory, to 
the exclusion of other miracles of like character. If one 
man may make such selection, others may. One may 
select the healing of the centurion's servant. Jesus said to 
him : "Go thy way : and as thou hast believed so be it done 
unto thee. And his servant was healed in the self-same 
hour." Matt, viii : 13. A servant may build a theory of 
conversion for him on this case and seek to be saved on 
the faith of the master. 

But some are not servants and would prefer to be saved 
upon the faith of their parents, hence they select a differ- 
ent miracle. " Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O 
woman, great is thy faith ; be it unto thee even as thou 
wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very 
hour." Matt, xv : 28. Again : "As soon as Jesus heard 
the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the 
synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe." Mark v 136. And 
on his faith Jesus restored his dead daughter to life, though 
twelve years of age. Then, if any one has parents he may 
get them to have faith for him, and upon their faith his 
sins may be pardoned. 

But another may not be a servant, nor yet have parents, 
but may have brothers or sisters, hence he selects the fol- 
lowing : When Jesus was standing over the grave of Laz- 
arus, He said to Martha : " Said I not unto thee, that if 
thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of 
God ?" John xi : 40. Then, if a man wishes to be saved, he 
may get his sister to have faith, and that will do for him. 

But another has no relatives, and hence must select an- 
other example. "They brought a man sick of the palsy, 
lying on a bed ; and Jesus seeing their faith said unto 
the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be 
forgiven thee." Matt, ix : 2. Taking this case as a foun- 
dation, a man may get his neighbors to have faith for him. 



542 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

But as many have more faith in tbe preachers than any 
one else, they select another example suited to their taste. 
" Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look 
on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive 
something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have 
I none ; but such as I have give I thee : In the name of 
Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took 
him by the right hand, and lifted him up." Acts iii : 4-7. 
Then, with this case as a foundation, a man may get the 
preacher to have faith, and that will do for him. 

But there are infidels who have no faith in any one. 
They may be saved too. " When Jesus was come into 
Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a 
fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her." 
Matt, viii : 14. All the faith in this case was in Jesus. So 
of the blind man restored to sight. John ix: 6, 7. These 
examples would justify the theory of justification upon the 
faith of Christ without any faith in the saved at all. 

But there are those who seem to have more communion 
with evil spirits than with the Lord. They, too, may find 
examples suited to their taste. " Unclean spirits, when 
they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou 
art the Son of God." Mark iii : 11. See also v : 7. Luke 
iv : 41. These examples would secure salvation "upon the 
faith of evil spirits. 

But we return now to the case whence we set out ; and 
by an examination it will be seen that her faith did not 
make her whole until she did the thing contemplated in 
her faith. "When she had heard of Jesus, came in the 
press behind and touched his garment. For she said, If I 
may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. And straight- 
way the fountain of her blood was dried up ; and she felt 
in her body that she was healed of that plague." Mark v : 
27-29. Then, this example would not do for justification 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



543 



by faith alone, for she did the thing contemplated in her 
faith before she was healed. 

But what have all these miracles to do with remission 
of sins ? If one man may select one of them on which to 
build a theory of conversion, others may do the same thing, 
and we may thus have as many different theories of con- 
version as there are miracles recorded. John said : " Many 
other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, 
which are not written in this book ; but these are written, 
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of 
God ; and that believing ye might have life through his 
name." John xx : 30, 31. 

Then these miracles were not written upon which to 
construct theories of conversion, but they were written 
that the people might believe in the divine character and 
mission of Jesus Christ. They could not have been done 
by unaided human power ; hence, says Nicodemus : " We 
know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man 
can do the miracles that thou doest except God be with 
him." John iii : 2. This is the object of these miracles, 
and hence they have nothing to do with justification by 
faith alone. 

" But the thief was saved without being baptized." To 
this assumption we file three objections : 1. No man can 
prove that the thief was saved at all. 2. No man can 
prove that he was unbaptized^. 3. This was before the 
kingdom was established, and before the law of remission 
began to be preached under the new covenant. 

It is true that the thief " said unto Jesus, Lord, remem- 
ber me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus 
said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou 
be with me in paradise." Luke xxiii : 42, 43. It is doubt- 
ful whether the thief made this request in derision or in 
good faith, for the thieves had both derided Him (see Matt 



544 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

xxvii 144; Mark xv: 32.) And, in the next place, if the 
thief understood the nature of Christ's kingdom, he had 
higher conceptions of it than did even the apostles, for 
they thought it a merely temporal kingdom. In the next 
place, Jesus only promised the thief that they would meet 
in paradise. Jesus was in the heart of the earth (Matt, 
xii : 40), and when He arose from the grave He said He 
had not yet ascended to His Father. John xx: 17. Then 
we think it would be difficult to prove that this amounted 
to a promise of salvation. 

Was the thief baptized ? We can not prove positively 
that he was, nor can any one prove that he was not. John 
was baptizing in that country, and there " went out to him 
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about 
Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing 
their sins." Matt, iii : 5, 6. That this language implies the 
baptism of large masses of the people no one will deny ; 
then "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John." 
John iv : 1. Then, taking what John baptized and what 
Jesus, through his disciples, baptized in that country — and 
we suppose there were but few left unbaptized — hence 
the probabilities are strongly in favor of the presumption 
that the thief was baptized. 

But whether he was or was not baptized affects not the 
doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins. While a 
man lives he may give his # property to whom he will, but 
when he dies, leaving a will, there can be no more special 
bequests, but his property must be distributed according to 
the provisions of the will. So while Christ was upon the 
earth, He could say to a man, " Thy sins be forgiven thee," 
and it was so ; but when He died, leaving a will, He would 
not afterward pardon, even Saul, contrary to the provisions 
of the will, but sent him where he might find a man to tell 
him how he might obtain pardon according to the provis- 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



545 



ions of the will. Granting, then, what can not be proved, 
that the thief was saved without baptism, while Christ was 
alive, it is no evidence that men may be so saved after the 
law went into force, which required them to be baptized in 
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. 

But Paul says : " Therefore being justified by faith we 
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." 
Rom. v: i. By supplying the word only or alone after 
the word faith, this passage has been made to negative 
the doctrine of baptism for remission of sins by setting 
up the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If this be 
the correct interpretation of the passage, then the word 
alone may be supplied in the reading ; thus : "Being justi- 
fied by faith alone we have peace with God." Then how 
are we to reconcile this statement with others made by 
Paul himself? If we are justified by faith alone, we are 
justified by faith to the exclusion of every thing else ; yet, 
in the same chapter from which the above quotation is 
made, he says : " Much more, then, being justified by his 
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Ver. 
9. Does Paul thus flatly contradict himself in the same 
chapter? Again he says: "Being justified freely by his 
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." 
Rom. ill : 24. Once more : " Ye are justified in the name 
of the Lord Jesus, and b}' the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 
vi : 11. Now, how can we be justified by all these things 
and justified by any one of them alone ? We may be jus- 
tified by grace, but not by grace alone ; by Christ, but not 
by Christ alone ; by blood, but not by blood alone ; by the 
Spirit, but not by the Spirit alone ; in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, but not by His name alone ; by faith, but not by 
faith alone ; by works, but not by works alone. We live 
by breathing, but not by breathing alone ; we live by eat- 
trig, but not by eating alone ; we live by sleeping, but not 

46 



546 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

by sleeping alone ; we live by exercise, but not by exercise 
alone. A place for every thing, and every thing in its 
place, is God's order every-where. 

But if we may supply the word alone after the word faith> 
in Rom. v : 1, why may we not do the same thing elsewhere ? 
If the phrase "by faith" means by faith alone, then we may 
supply the word alone and make sense wherever this form 
of expression occurs. Shall we try a few passages, to see 
whether or not the phrase "by faith" means by faith alone ? 
" By faith alone Abel offered unto God a more excellent 
sacrifice than Cain." Heb. xi : 4. " By faith alone Noah, 
being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with 
fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house." Ver. 7. 
" By faith alone Abraham, when he was called to go out 
into a place which he should after receive for an inherit- 
ance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither he 
went." Ver. 8. That is, he sat perfectly still, went no- 
where, nor did any thing only by faith ! " By faith alone 
Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac." Ver. 17. 
That is, by faith alone he went three days' journey to a 
mountain shown him by the Lord ; by faith alone he built 
an altar ; by faith alone he bound his son upon the altar ; 
and by faith alone he raised his knife and would have slain 
him had not the Lord interposed ! ! And thus we might 
go through the whole list of examples given in this chap- 
ter, but these are sufficient to show the absurdity of sup- 
plying the word alone or only after faith. These ancient 
worthies did what they were commanded to do, in order to 
accomplish the object contemplated in their faith. They 
practically carried out their faith, and perfected it by obe- 
dience to the law of the Lord. James says : " By works 
was faith made perfect." Jas. ii : 22. Surely, an imperfect 
faith can do no good — and if not, it can only be perfected 
in obedience. " Even so faith, if it hath not works, is 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 



547 



dead, being alone." Ver. 17. And again: "As the body 
without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead 
also." Ver. 26. Can dead faith justify any one ? 

But by supplying the word alone, or only in the passage 
quoted, thus making Paul say, "Therefore, being justified 
by faith only, we have peace with God," we not only make 
him contradict himself, but we make him contradict James, 
when he says : " Ye see, then, how that by works a man is 
justified, and not by faith only." Jas. ii : 24. Now, James 
does not say that a man is justified by works alone, to the 
exclusion of faith, for the phrase "not by faith only " shows 
that faith is included. 

But we are told that Paul speaks of justification in the 
sense of pardon, and James speaks of justification in the 
sense of approval — that" Paul draws his argument from 
Abraham's faith, by which he was justified ox pardoned of 
his sins, when the covenant of circumcision was instituted, 
an account of which we have in the seventeenth chapter 
of Genesis — and James draws his argument from Abra- 
ham's justification as a righteous man when he offered his 
son, an account of which we have in the twenty-second 
chapter. Now, we respectfully deny that Abraham was an 
unpardoned sinner tip to the time of which Paul speaks. 
The first account we have of him is as follows : " Now, 
the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy coun- 
try, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, 
unto a land that I will shew thee ; and I will make of 
thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy 
name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing ; and I will bless 
them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee ; 
and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 
Gen. xii : 1-3. Now, this precedes the time to which Paul 
refers by twenty-five years ; and can any sane man believe 
that God fell in love with Abraham so as to induce his 



548 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

removal from among the wicked that he might be the father 
of God's peculiar people ; and that God promised to bless 
them who blessed him, and curse them who cursed him, 
when he was a condemned, unpardoned sinner himself, and 
so remained for twenty-five years afterward? Abraham 
was as good a man the first account we ever have of him 
as he ever got to be, and both Paul and James allude to his 
justification in the sense of approval ; but they did it to 
show the kind of faith which has always been required to 
meet the favor of God — a faith which trusted in the prom- 
ise of God, and perfected itself by obedience to His will. 
God never accepted any other faith than this from saint or 
sinner. This is the doctrine taught by Paul and James, 
and there is neither discrepancy in their teachings nor 
difference in the justification to which they allude. The 
principle will apply to the alien or to the Christian, as an 
imperfect or dead faith will profit neither. 

In the New Testament the word faith is used in at least 
three different significations, i. As the synonym of belief; 
2. To indicate a spiritual gift by which miracles were 
wrought ; and 3. To indicate a system of justification by 
the gospel in contrast with the law of Moses. The first 
two of these we have examined sufficiently in the chapter 
on faith ; the system of faith demands some further notice 
just here. We have seen that James says we are justified 
by works, yet Paul says : " Not of works, lest any man 
should boast." Eph. ii : 9. How shall we reconcile these 
two statements ? Paul says : " Knowing that a man is not 
justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus 
Christ, even we have believed on Jesus Christ, that we 
might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the 
works of the law ; for by the works of the law shall no 
flesh be justified." Gal. ii : 16. Then, when Paul said 
" not of works, lest any man should boast," he referred, 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 549 

first, to the origin of the plan of salvation, that it was by 
grace or unmerited favor, and, secondly, that it was not by 
the works of the law of Moses. By the faith of Jesus 
Christ, which Paul here contrasts with the law, is meant 
the system of faith or gospel plan of salvation given by 
Jesus Christ. By the phrase works of the law is meant 
the works of the law of Moses which had been taken out 
of the way by the death of Christ, by which if a man could 
be saved now he might have whereof to glory, for he 
would be saved upon a plan of his own, and not upon 
God's plan ; hence, Paul asks : " Where is boasting then ? 
It is excluded. By what law ? of works ? Nay ; but by 
the law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a man is 
justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Rom. 
iii : 2J, 28. What is the law of faith ? Certainly, it is the 
gospel, and by it boasting is excluded because it is God's 
plan, which was given in mercy, from a principle of love, 
grace, or unmerited favor ; and " was made known to all 
nations for the obedience of faith." Rom. xvi : 26. Paul 
calls this same law of faith " the law of the Spirit of life 
in Christ Jesus," which he says " hath made me free from 
the law of sin and death." Rom. viii : 2. To be made 
free from sin by a law we must comply with the require- 
ments of the law ; hence says Paul : " You have obeyed 
from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered 
you, being then made free from sin." Rom. vi : 17, 18. 

But we are told that "Abraham believed God, and it was 
counted unto him for righteousness." Rom. iv : 3. But 
when was faith counted to him for righteousness ? James 
says: "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, 
when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ? Seest 
thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was 
faith made perfect ? And the scripture was fulfilled which 
saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him 



550 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

for righteousness ; and he was called the friend of God. 
Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not 
by faith only." Jas. ii : 21-24. Then, it was when Abra- 
ham obeyed God, and perfected his faith by obedience that 
his faith was counted to him for righteousness. Hence, 
if we would be justified by faith, as Abraham was, we must 
" walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham." 
Rom. iv : 12. "By faith Abraham, when he was called to 
go out into a place which he should after receive for an 
inheritance, obeyed ; and he went out, not knowing whither 
he went." Heb. xi : 8. Abraham walked by faith, not by 
sight, and if we would walk in the steps of his faith, we 
must trust in God and go where He commands us to go, 
whether we can or can not see to the end. 

But the advocates of justification by faith alone invoke 
the aid of John as well as Paul in support of their theory. 
He says : " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ 
is born of God ; and every one that loveth him that begat 
loveth him also that is begotten of him." 1 John v: 1. 
That the translation of this verse is defective any one can 
see by the context. The words bom, begat, begotten are 
from the same original word, and the word born here 
should have been begotten, as the context clearly shows. 
" Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten 
of God ; and every one that loveth him that begat loveth 
him that is begotten of him." This harmonizes the pas- 
sage with itself, and with the general teaching of the 
Scriptures on the subject of the new birth to the chapter 
on which the reader is referred. When a man believes the 
gospel he is begotten of God, and is prepared to be born. 
As an effect of his faith he must loveQoA ; hence "He that 
loveth is born [begotten] of God." 1 John iv : 7. Nor is 
this all. " Every one that doeth righteousness is born 
[begotten] of God." 1 John ii : 29. Whosoever, then, be- 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 55 I 

lieves that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten of God — loves 
God, and does righteousness ; for " Whosoever doeth not 
righteousness is not of God." I John iii : 10. 

That the word bom in I John v : I, should be begotten 
is a point upon which critics are very generally agreed. 

Dr. Clark says : " He that believes that Jesus is the 
Messiah, and confides in him for the remission of sins, is 
begotten of God!' Commentary, John v: I. 

T. S. Green, of London, translates the verse thus: 
" Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ has been 
begotten of God ; and every one that loves the begetter 
loves him that has been begotten of him." Twofold New 
Testament. 

When the translation is corrected, the difficulty is gone. 
He who makes a proper distinction between being begotten 
of God and the new birth knows that when a man believes 
the gospel he is begotten ; but if begotten of God and bom 
again mean the same thing, we see no use in correcting 
the translation. 

John further says : " He came unto his own, and his own 
received him not ; but as many as received him, to them 
gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them 
that believe on his name ; which were born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
God." John i: 11-13. Jesus came to his own — John 
came to prepare a people for the Lord, and when they 
were made ready Jesus came to them, but as a people they 
did not receive Him. Some did, however, and believed on 
His name, and to them He gave the power or privilege 
of becoming sons of God. John baptized the people, say- 
ing " That they should believe on him which should come 
after him — that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts xix: 4. Hav- 
ing been previously baptized by John, and made ready for 
the Lord, when they believed on Him He gave them per- 



552 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

mission to enter the family of God when it should be 
organized on the day of Pentecost. The style of expres- 
sion shows that their faith did not make them sons of 
God, but simply prepared them to become such in future. 
It was a prospective privilege with them ; but no persons 
are situated now as they were then. They were baptized 
before Jesus came, and when He came they believed on 
Him before His Father's family was organized, or the king- 
dom of God had come ; hence they had permission given 
them to become His children when the fullness of time 
should arrive. 

It is sometimes said the material prepared by John had 
to repent and be baptized, as others, on or after the day of 
Pentecost, in order to enter the spiritual family of God ; 
but if this was true, the privilege of becoming sons of God 
was without meaning to them. All others had the privi- 
lege of becoming sons of God in this way, and therefore 
His own prepared people who believed on Him were not 
at all in advance of those who crucified Him ; for they could 
repent, and be baptized in His name for the remission of 
sins, and enter the kingdom on the day of Pentecost. What 
did the Lord mean by giving His own prepared people who 
believed on Him the power or privilege of becoming the 
sons of God ? Surely, this privilege amounted to some- 
thing. 

We come now to notice a class of proof texts more relied 
on to prove the doctrine of justification by faith alone than 
any others, perhaps, in the Bible. They are in the third 
chapter of John, and we begin to read with the fourteenth 
verse : " And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up ; that who- 
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal 
life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only- 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 553 

perish, but have everlasting life." Vs. 14-16. Now be it 
observed that Jesus is here speaking to Nicodemus, to 
whom he had just said : " Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of 
God." Ver. 5. Does any one believe that Jesus intended 
to contradict this statement by what he said in the four- 
teenth to sixteenth verses ? That is, " I know, Nicodemus, 
that I did say that a man must be born of water and of 
the Spirit, or into the kingdom of God he should not go ; 
but I was wrong in that, for he that believeth on Me has 
everlasting life, whether born of water or not." Jesus had 
fully explained the new birth to Nicodemus, and he did not 
believe the testimony — "you receive not our witness;" 
hence Jesus appeals to an incident in Jewish history with 
which, as a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus was bound to be 
familiar, to confirm the fact that He was the promised Mes- 
siah, through Whom alone the world could hope for eter- 
nal life. The Israelites were bitten by poisonous serpents, 
and were dying without remedy, but God instructed Moses 
to make a serpent of brass, and place it upon a pole in the 
midst of the camp, and he that would look upon it should 
live. Now, Nicodemus, you are acquainted with this fact ; 
then, "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, 
even so must the Son of man be lifted up." And how was 
the serpent lifted up ? Were the bitten Israelites cured 
by faith alone ? They might have believed that the brazen 
serpent was on the pole, and they might have believed in 
the power of God to heal them, yet had they regarded the 
look as non-essential, and acted accordingly, they would 
have died without remedy. They had to do the thing com- 
manded or die ; even so may the sinner believe that Jesus 
was lifted upon the cross and died for sinners, yet if he re- 
fuses to look to God in His appointed way, he will die in 
his sins and be lost at last. Then, it was believe, look, and 



554 



THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



live ; now, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. 
Baptism is the act of faith now ; look \yas the act of faith 
then. 

But Jesus makes another declaration to Nicodemus 
which, to understand, we must remember the circum- 
stances under which it was said : " He that believeth on 
him is not condemned ; but he that believeth not is con- 
demned already, because he hath not believed in the name 
of the only-begotten Son of God." Ver. 18. We have 
seen that John's baptism obligated those who received it 
to believe on Jesus when He should come; hence those 
who believed on Him were not condemned, but had permis- 
sion to become sons of God ; but those who did not believe 
on Him had forfeited their obligations, and hence were in 
a state of condemnation for their unbelief. This could not 
have been applicable to those who had not heard the pre- 
liminary preaching of John, Jesus, or His disciples, for they 
surely would not have been already condemned for not 
believing in a Christ of Whom they had not heard. As 
these unbelievers were already condemned, it follows that 
they were such as had been under obligations to believe. 

One more verse in this chapter demands a passing no- 
tice : "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life ; 
and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but 
the wrath of God abideth on him." Ver. 36. We have 
no doubt that this declaration was made with reference to 
the same class of persons — namely, those who had been 
baptized. Paul says : " Moreover, brethren, I declare unto 
you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye 
have received, and wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are 
saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, un- 
less ye have believed in vain." 1 Cor. xv: 1, 2. How could 
a man believe in vain if he were in possession of eternal 
life the moment he believed ? Every part of God's Word 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 555 

must be so interpreted as to harmonize with every other 
part ; and nothing is more clearly taught in Holy Writ 
than that man never has eternal life otherwise than in pros- 
pect while he dwells in the flesh. " Eternal " means with- 
out beginning or end — of endless duration ; hence, if any 
one has eternal life in actual possession, he can not, believe 
in vain — he can not fall away and be lost ; for, whenever he 
falls, that is an end to his spiritual life, which, therefore, 
could not have been eternal. That it is possible for a child 
of God to fall away and be lost, we have seen on pages 28- 
32, to which the reader is respectfully referred. 

In further confirmation of the fact that the Christian has 
eternal life only in prospect, Jesus says : " There is no man 
that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or 
mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake and the 
gospel's, but he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this 
time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and 
children, and lands, with persecutions ; and in the world to 
come eternal life." Mark x : 29, 30. Luke gives an abridg- 
ment of this promise, thus : " Manifold more in this pres- 
ent time ; and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 
xviii : 30. Here the Lord expressly tells us whe?i His fol- 
lowers shall have eternal life — in the world to come. Ac- 
cording to the theory of some, His disciples might have 
replied : " Lord, you said, ' He that believeth on the Son 
of God hath everlasting life ; ' we believe on you, and, 
therefore, have eternal life now : why do you say we shall 
have it in the world to come ? " Paul says : " Now being 
made free from sin, and become servants of God, ye have 
your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life." Rom. 
vi : 22. Paul's brethren at Rome were then pardoned — free 
from sin — servants of God — and of course were believers 
in Jesus, yet they were to have eternal life at the end. 
Again : Paul speaks of the righteous judgment, when God 



556 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

"will render to every man according to his deeds ; to them 
who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, 
and honor, and immortality, eternal life." Rom. ii : 6, 7. 
Those who persevere in well-doing to the e?id will get eter- 
nal life in the judgment of the great day, when the wicked 
" shall go away into everlasting punishment ; but the right- 
eous into life eternal." Matt, xxv : 46. The eternal life 
of the righteous is co-etaneous with the punishment of the 
wicked. Paul admonished Timothy to fight the good fight 
of faith, that he might " lay hold on eternal life." 1 Tim. 
vi : 12. Surely, this man of God did not have to fight in or- 
der to lay hold on that which he already had. And to Titus 
Paul said : " Being justified by his grace, we should be made 
heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Tit. iii : 7. He 
who is justified by grace hopes for eternal life ; yet he can 
not hope for that which he already has ; " but if we hope 
for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." 
Rom. viii: 25. Then they who had been baptized by John, 
and believed on Jesus as the Son of God when He came, had 
everlasting life ; but how did they have it ? In prospect — 
by right or grant — were heirs of eternal life, and, by patient 
continuance in well-doing, would lay hold on it in the world 
to come. And no man has it otherwise now, however con- 
fidingly he believes in Jesus Christ, or honestly he may 
have obeyed the gospel. 

"Among the chief rulers also many believed on him, but 
because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest 
they should be put out of the synagogue, for they loved 
the praise of men more than the praise of God." John 
xii : 42, 43. Here were persons who believed on Jesus, 
yet surely no one will say they had eternal life when they 
loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. 
They would not confess Jesus before men ; and he says : 
u Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 557 

will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven ; 
but whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also 
deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matt, x : 32, 
33; Luke xii : 8. And again: "Whosoever, therefore, 
shall be ashamed of me and of my words, in this adulterous 
generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, 
when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy 
angels." Mark viii 138; Luke ix : 26. If this does not 
cut off those rulers who believed on Jesus, no language 
could do it ; and yet they did the very thing which, it is 
claimed, secures eternal life. Their faith was dead, and 
surely dead faith can not secure eternal life. 

But we have another case. "As he spake these words, 
many believed on him." Here are believers — have they 
eternal life ? We will see. " Then said Jesus to those 
Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, 
then are ye my disciples indeed." John viii : 30, 31. Jesus 
continues His address to " those Jews which believed on 
him" until at the fortieth verse He says: "But now ye 
seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which 
I have heard of God." To these same believers He says : 
" Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your 
father ye will do." Ver. 44. Here were persons who be- 
lieved on the Son of God, yet they sought to kill Him, and 
He tells them that they are children of the devil. Surely, 
then, he who believes on the Son of God, and does not 
perfect his faith by obedience to His will, can not have 
eternal life, either in possession or in prospect, unless, indeed, 
he may be the son of God and a child of the devil at the 
same time. 

If it be true that man is justified by faith alone, is it not 
a little remarkable that no case of conversion can be found 
on record where a man rejoiced in the pardon of his sins 
before, or without baptism after, the new covenant went 



558 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

into operation on the day of Pentecost ? Thousands were 
converted under the teaching of inspired men, and the 
cases are recorded for " our learning," yet not a case of jus- 
tification, or pardon by faith alone — not one. " Yes, Cor- 
nelius was baptized with the Holy Ghost and spake with 
tongues before he was baptized in the name of the Lord ; and, 
as the world can not receive the Spirit, he was, of course, 
pardoned by faith alone before baptism." This is the most 
plausible case, and we have put the objection in the strongest 
possible terms, that we may examine it in all its strength. 
That the Holy Spirit or Comforter can not be received 
as an indwelling guest by a man of the world is a fact 
conceded ; but the ability to speak with tongues was not 
always conclusive proof of the conversion v of the party 
speaking by the Spirit, or that the Spirit had taken up its 
abode in him. Very wicked men have spoken by inspira- 
tion of God. Balaam prophesied against Balak by the im- 
mediate direction of God.* The Spirit of God came upon 
Saul, and he prophesied.! The old lying prophet of Bethel 
was enabled by the Spirit to foretell the sad fate of the 
man of God, whom by falsehood he had seduced from the 
word of the Lord.J Caiaphas, though one of the chief 
priests who conspired against the Lord, prophesied of the 
death of Christ for the Jewish nation. § These men, though 
wicked as need be, prophesied truly by the Spirit of God ; 
hence, the fact that Cornelius was enabled to prophesy can 
not prove that his sins were pardoned at that time. Cor- 
nelius was told to send to Joppa for Simon Peter, " who 
shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall 
be saved." And Peter says : "As I began to speak the 
Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning." Acts 
xi : 14, 15. Now, if Cornelius had to hear words by which 

* Num. xxiii, xxiv. Two chapters entire. f 1 Sam. x : 10. 

X I Kings xiii : 11-32. g John xi : 47~53- 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 559 

to be saved, he could not have been saved by the words 
until he heard them. And as the Holy Spirit fell on them 
as Peter began to speak, it follows that they had not heard 
the words when the Holy Spirit fell on them, and hence 
they were not saved at that time. From this decision 
there can be no appeal. Alluding to this event, " Peter 
rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know 
how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, 
that the Gentiles- by my mouth should hear the word of 
the gospel and believe." Acts xv : 7. Then, if they were 
pardoned when the Holy Ghost fell on them at the begin- 
ning of Peter's discourse, they were pardoned before they 
heard and believed the gospel, and therefore they were par- 
doned without faith as well as without baptism. 

Paul says : " Though I speak with the tongues of men 
and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sound- 
ing brass or a tinkling cymbal." 1 Cor. xiii : 1. Hence, 
were a man baptized^with the Holy Spirit, and enabled to 
speak in all the languages of earth, yet without charity or 
love he would be nothing ; and " this is the love of God 
that we keep his commandments." 1 John v : 3. And 
what was His commandment to Cornelius ? " He com- 
manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 
Acts x : 48. What were they baptized in the name of the 
Lord for ? To the Pentecostians Peter said : " Repent, 
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins." Acts ii : 38. Then 
Peter understood baptism in the name of the Lord to be 
for the remission of sins, and this is what he commanded 
Cornelius to do ; and he says God " put no difference be- 
tween us and them ;" and again : " We believe that through 
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved even 
as they." Acts xv : 9-1 1. Then, unless God did make a 
difference between the salvation of the Jews and the Gen- 



56O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

tiles, which Peter says He did not, Cornelius was baptized 
in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. For 
the design of his baptism with the Holy Spirit, see the 
chapter on that subject. 

Conybeare and Howson say : " The case of Cornelius, 
in which the gifts of the Holy Spirit were bestowed before 
baptism, was an exception to the ordinary rule." Life and 
Epistles of Paul, p. 384. That they are right in this state- 
ment, is clear from the fact that the Pentecostian converts 
were not baptized with the Holy Spirit at all, and were only 
promised the gift of the Holy Spirit as a sequence to bap- 
tism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
and from the additional fact that the Samaritans believed 
and were baptized, and yet the Holy Spirit fell upon none 
of them until Peter and John went there.* 

But Peter said : " To him give all the prophets witness, 
that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall 
receive remission of sins." Acts x : 43. Yes, believers get 
remission of sins through His name, and that is the reason 
Peter commanded Cornelius and the Pentecostians to be 
baptized in His name, that they might receive remission 
of sins as the prophets had testified ; and we know of no 
other way by which believers may receive remission of sins 
in His name than by accepting remission as He proposed 
it, saying : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved." Mark xvi : 16. 

But we have an overwhelming objection to the doctrine 
of baptism for the remission of sins in the fact that Paul 
says : " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
gospel." 1 Cor. i: 17. This is an elliptical form of expres- 
sion, like which we have many in the Bible ; e. g, " He 
that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that 



See Acts viii: 13-16. 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 561 

sent me.' John xii: 44. Here the Saviour is made to 
contradict Himself in a single sentence, by saying he that 
believed on Him did not believe on Him ; but when we 
supply the ellipsis all is plain. " He that believeth on me, 
believeth not [only] on me, but [also] on him' that sent me." 
We suppose all will agree that the words only and also 
should be supplied in this quotation. Let us try another. 
" But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or 
what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in that same 
hour what ye shall speak ; for it is not ye that speak, but 
the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Matt. 
x : 19, 20. Here, again, unless the ellipsis be supplied, 
Christ contradicts Himself by first saying it should be 
given them what they should speak, and then telling them 
that they should not speak at all. When the ellipsis is 
supplied the passage reads thus : " It is not [only] you that 
speak, but [also] the Spirit of my Father that speaketh in 
you." Do all agree to this ? Then, why may we not un- 
derstand Paul in the same way ? " Christ sent me not 
[only] to baptize, but [also] to preach the gospel." If this 
ellipsis be not allowed, then we have Paul doing that for 
which he had no authority ; for he says he did baptize even 
some of these Corinthians ; as he says himself he baptized 
Crispus, and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus. 

Now, can any one suppose that Paul raised his hand 
before God and said : " In the name of Jesus Christ I bap- 
tize you," when Christ gave him no authority to baptize 
at all ? Surely not. Then Paul was sent not only to bap- 
tize, but also to preach the gospel. 

" But Paul thanked God that he had baptized but few 
of them ; and if baptism had been for the remission of sins 
he would have gladly baptized many of them." Paul did 
not thank God that but few had been baptized, but that 
but few of them had been baptized by him, and he gives 



562 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

a reason for this : " Lest any should say that I had bap 
tized in mine own name." Ver. 15. He does not say that 
he had not baptized but few persons at all, but only that 
he had baptized but few of the Corinthians, among whom 
this unfortunate division had sprung up. He may have 
baptized thousands elsewhere. 

But had baptism been an unmeaning formality, it occurs 
to us that Paul would not have feared a disparagement 
of its value by a false report concerning the name in 
which it was administered. But some of them had claimed 
to be of Paul, some of Apollos, some of Cephas, and some 
of Christ ; hence he asks : " Were you baptized in the 
name of Paul ?" thus showing that they could not be of 
Paul unless they had been baptized in his name, nor could 
they be of Christ unless baptized in His name. The apostle 
asks : " Was Paul crucified for you ?" thus showing that 
they were Christ's because He had died for them, and they 
had been baptized in His name, that they might enjoy the 
benefits of His death. Reader, will you be baptized in 
the name of Him who has been crucified for you, that 
you may be His and enjoy the benefits of His death? 

" But what efficacy is there in water to wash away sins ? " 
Just none at all. " Then why should we be baptized in wa- 
ter for the remission of sins ? " Because God has required 
it: is not this reason enough ? The blood of Christ cleans- 
eth us from all sin ; but as we can not come in contact with 
it literally, we must approach it through the means which 
God has appointed for that purpose. As God saw fit to 
appoint baptism for this purpose, it is our duty to submit, 
but not our province to object. Had He seen proper to 
appoint prayer at the mourner's-bench, or any thing else, 
for this purpose, then this, and not baptism, would have 
been the act of obedience for us. When God commands, 
the man of faith obeys without a why or an if, and the 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 563 

promised blessing is sure to follow. Naaman reasoned 
very much like the people do now.* He was afflicted with 
a loathsome leprosy which bid defiance to all the remedies 
at his command, when he was induced by a captive girl, 
who waited on his wife, to go to Samaria, that Elisha the 
prophet might cure him. He prepared himself with pres- 
ents, and a letter from the king of Syria to the king of 
Israel, that he might be properly introduced on his arrival. 
When he presented his letter to the king, it gave offense to 
him, rather than secured his favor ; but when Elisha heard 
of it, he ordered Naaman to be brought unto him, that he 
might know there was a prophet in Israel. When he stood 
before the house of Elisha, he did not even go out to see him, 
but " sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in 
Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, 
and thou shalt be clean." But Naaman was angry, and 
went away, saying, "Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers 
of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel ? may I 
not wash in them and be clean ? So he turned and went 
away in a rage." But a servant, more prudent than him- 
self, entreated him to go and do what the prophet had di- 
rected : " Then went he down and dipped himself seven 
times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of 
God ; and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a lit- 
tle child." Just so people reason now. "What virtue is 
there in water ? Why not go to the altar or to the grove 
and be pardoned?" But Naaman thought there was no 
virtue in the waters of the Jordan ; and truly there was 
none ; yet God healed him when he did the thing com- 
manded. So there is no abstract virtue connected with 
the water in which we are baptized ; but the Lord said, 
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" and 



2 Kings entire. 



564 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

as Naaman was cured when he obeyed, so will the sin- 
ner be saved who obeys the commandment of the Lord. 
God commanded Moses to make a serpent of brass and 
put it on a pole in the midst of the camps of Israel, prom- 
ising that the bitten Israelite who looked thereon should 
live;* and it came to pass according to His word. Was 
there any virtue in the brass ? None. Any in the pecul- 
iar form into which it was cast ? None. Any in the pole 
on which it was reared ? None. Any in looking at it on 
the pole ? None. Yet God healed the bitten man when 
he did just what was required of him. Jesus made oint- 
ment of spittle and clay and anointed the eyes of one who 
had been born blind, and told him to go and wash in the 
pool of Siloam, which he did, and came seeing, f Was 
there any efficacy in the spittle ? None. Any in the 
clay ? None. Any in the waters of the pool in which 
he washed ? None. Yet the Lord gave him sight when 
he availed himself of the means appointed for that pur- 
pose. These illustrations might be extended indefinitely ; 
but surely the thought is sufficiently clear that we are bap- 
tized because God has required it of us, and in respect to 
His authority ; and we expect remission of sins, not be- 
cause of any virtue in water, or merit in any act of our 
own, but because the Lord has promised to bestow it upon 
us when we comply with His will. 

But why should we have to thus explain a doctrine as 
though it were new which has been taught not only by the 
writers of the New Testament, but also by primitive Chris- 
tians even from the days of the apostles. At the risk of 
being tedious, we must present a few extracts from the 
writings of the " fathers " in proof of this fact. 

Hermas says: "For before any one receives the name 



Num. xxi: 8-12. fjohnix: 1-7. 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 565 

of the Son of God he is liable to death ; but when he re- 
ceives that seal, he is delivered from death and is assigned 
to life. Now, that seal is water, into which persons go 
down liable to death, but come out of it assigned to life. 
For which reason to these also was the seal preached ; and 
they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom 
of God." Wall's History, vol. i, p. 51. (Paul salutes Her- 
mas, Rom. xvi : 14.) Wall says : " This book was written 
before St. John wrote his gospel." Ibid, p. 52. On page 
54 he says : " The scope of the place is to represent the 
necessity of water-baptism to salvation or to entrance into 
the kingdom of God, in the opinion of the then Christians — 
i. e., the Christians of the apostles' times." Thus we see, 
according to Dr. Wall, that Hermas lived in the days of 
the apostles, and wrote before John wrote his gospel ; and 
he says persons go down into the zvater liable to death, and 
come out of it assigned to life. 

Barnabas says : "This meaneth that we indeed descend 
into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up 
bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of God, and trust 
in Jesus in our spirit." Apostolic Fathers, p. 154. Barna- 
bas is said to have been the companion of Paul. Orchard's 
History, vol. i, p. 12. 

Justin Martyr wrote about ninety years after Matthew 
wrote his gospel. He says " that we should not continue 
children of that necessity and ignorance, but of will, or 
choice, and knowledge, and should obtain forgiveness of 
the sins in which we have lived, by water, [or in the water] 
there is invoked, over him that has a mind to be regener- 
ated, the name of God the Father," etc. Wall's History, 
vol. i, p. 69. 

Orchard quotes Justin as follows : "This food we call the 
eucharist, of which none are allowed to be partakers but 
such only as are true believers, and have been baptized in 



566 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the laver of regeneration for the remission of sins." Or- 
chard's History, vol. i, p. 24. 

Wall comments on a quotation from Justin thus : " I re- 
cite this to show that in these times, so very near the apos- 
tles', they spoke of original sin affecting all mankind de- 
scended of Adam ; and understood that, besides the actual 
sins of each particular person, there is in our nature itself, 
since the fall, something that needs redemption and for- 
giveness by the merits of Christ And that is ordinarily 
applied to every particular person by baptism." Wall's 
History, vol. i, p. 64. 

Origen wrote about the year 185 A. D. He says : " They 
are rightly baptized who are washed unto salvation. He 
that is baptized unto salvation receives the water and the 
Holy Spirit ; such baptism as is accompanied with cruci- 
fying the flesh, and rising again to newness of life, is the 
approved baptism." Orchard's History, vol. i, p. 35. 

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the year 385 A. D., said: 
" If any one receive not baptism he can not be saved." Ibid, 

P. 43- 

St. Ambrose : " There is no regeneration without water." 
Wall's History, vol. i, p. 78. 

Tertullian. Wall comments upon Tertullian thus:" 
" This author, in the places here first cited, treating of the 
necessity of baptism, speaks of that necessity as absolute, 
and of those who die unbaptized as lost men ; and is en- 
raged at those who maintain that faith without it is suffi- 
cient to salvation." Wall's History, vol. i, p. 96. 

Gregory Nazianzen. Wall comments on Gregory after 
the following style : " When he deters the baptized person 
from falling back into sinful courses, tells him ' there is 
not another regeneration afterward to be had, though it 
be sought with ever so much crying and tears,' and yet 
grants, in the next words, that there is repentance after 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 567 

baptism, but shows a difference between that and the free 
forgiveness given in baptism." Ibid, pp. Jj y 78. 

Cyprian : " If any one be not baptized and regenerated 
he can not come to the kingdom of God." Ibid, p. 146. 

Gregory, Bishop of Nysa, A. D. 388, says : "In baptism 
there are three things which conduct us to immortal life — 
Prayer, Water, and Faith:' Orchard's History, vol. i, p. 44. 

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, A. D. 390, says : " The body 
was plunged into this water to wash away sin." Ibid. 

In commenting upon the doctrine of Novatian, who fig- 
ured in the middle of the third century, Neander says : " The 
church, he could say, has no right to grant absolution to a 
person who, by any mortal sin, has trifled away the pardon 
obtained for him by Christ, and appropriated to him by bap- 
tism." Neander, vol. i, p. 244. 

Concerning baptism in the third century, Mosheim says: 
" The remission of sin was thought to be its immediate and 
happy fruit." Maclain, Mosheim, vol. i, p. 91. 

We might pursue this line of testimony on through the 
Donatists, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and other parties 
of more recent date, showing that they all were of one mind 
on this subject, but we have not room to do so. Even the 
abuses of baptism point to the well-recognized doctrine of 
baptism for the remission of sins. In the previous chapter 
we saw that infant baptism grew out of the absurd dogma 
of original sin, and the well-known fact that baptism was 
for the remission of sins. "The Council of Mela, in Nu- 
media in Africa, enjoin Christians to baptize their infants 
for forgiveness of sin, and curse all who deny the doctrine." 
Orchard's History, vol. i, p. 47. For abundant proof of this 
fact the reader is referred to the previous chapter. We have 
not the space, nor is it necessary, to elaborate it here — 
though a volume might be filled with proof of the fact. 

But if baptism for remission of sins was taught by the 



568 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

writers of the New Testament, and by the primitive Chris- 
tians for centuries after inspiration ceased, how comes it 
to pass that it is so zealously opposed by good men of mod- 
ern times ? From some cause a radical change has been 
effected in the theology of religious parties on this subject 
very recently. We have before us some two or three edi- 
tions of the Methodist Discipline which differ from each 
other widely upon this subject. One of them was pub- 
lished by John Early for the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South in Louisville, in 1846, from which we quote a prayer 
used at the baptism of persons of riper years, as follows : 

"Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all that need, 
the helper of all that flee to Thee for succor, the life of them 
that believe, and the resurrection of the dead ; we call upon 
Thee for these persons, that they, coming to Thy holy bap- 
tism, may receive remission of their sins by spiritual regen- 
eration. Receive them, O Lord, as thou hast promised by 
thy well-beloved Son, saying, Ask, and ye shall receive ; 
seek, andye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened unto 
you ; so give now unto us that ask : let us that seek, find ; 
open the gate unto us that knock; that these persons may 
enjoy the everlasting benediction of Thy heavenly wash- 
ing, and may come to the eternal kingdom which Thou 
hast promised by Christ our Lord. Amen?' 

Now we pick up another edition which was published by 
J. B. McFerrin, of Nashville, in 1858; and find that after 
the words " these persons " all the following words are 
omitted : " that they, coming to Thy holy baptism, may 
receive remission of their sins by spiritual regeneration." 
Why were these words stricken out ? If they were ex- 
pressive of truth in 1846, were they not equally orthodox 
in 1858 ? If baptism was for the remission of sins when 
the first edition was published, is there any good reason 
why it should not be so yet ? 



THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 569 

But there is a change in the next prayer equally signifi- 
cant. In 1846 the minister was instructed to pray for the 
candidates thus : " Give Thy Holy Spirit to these persons, 
that they may be born again, and be made heirs of ever- 
lasting salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." But in 
1858 he prays, " Give Thy Holy Spirit to these persons, that 
they, being born again, may be made heirs of everlasting 
salvation," etc. Then he prayed that " they may be born 
again " in baptism ; now he must recognize them as already 
born again before baptism. And still he must pray that 
they be made heirs of eternal life — as though they could 
be born again without being heirs of eternal life. But why 
cease to pray that they should be born again in baptism ? 
If it was true then that men must be born of water and of 
Spirit, it is certainly true yet. We do not object to the 
abandonment of error when it is discovered, but these 
changes show that these parties found themselves teaching 
the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins down to 
1858, when the change was made, and that a doctrine now 
regarded as a monstrous heresy was believed and taught 
up to that time. Indeed, it seems hard for the creed-mak- 
ers to avoid teaching this doctrine even when seeking to 
avoid it. The Westminster and Cumberland Presbyterian 
Confessions have both taught it, despite of their efforts to 
the contrary. They say : " Although it be a great sin to 
contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation 
are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person 
can be regenerated or saved without it." Here note the 
fact that it is a great sin to contemn or neglect baptism. Of 
repentance they say: "As there is no sin so small but it 
deserves damnation, so there is no sin so great that it can 
bring damnation upon those who truly repent." Here note 
the fact that there is no sin so small but deserves damnation ; 
hence, if the smallest sin deserves damnation, the great sin 

48 



570 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of neglecting baptism deserves it none the less. On the 
attributes of God they say : He " hates all sin, and will by 
no means clear the guilty." Then they who neglect bap- 
tism deserve, and will receive, damnation, if these books be 
true. 

But the last resort is an appeal to the prejudice of the 
people: "If baptism is for the remission of sins, all our 
pious fathers and mothers who died unbaptized are lost." 
As to what God will do with those who sought to know the 
truth, and made an honest mistake with regard to baptism 
or any thing else, He has not seen fit to reveal, and there- 
fore we will not attempt to decide ; but if, like many do 
now, they allowed prejudice to stop their ears and close 
their eyes against the truth, then we hesitate not to say 
that their ignorance of the law will be no excuse. But 
suppose they were deprived of opportunities which you 
have, and they honestly believed non-essential that which 
you know to be a solemn requisition of the Lord, will you 
be excused because they were ? But suppose we concede 
that they were lost, will it benefit them for you to persist 
in rebellion and be lost also ? Would it not be more wise 
for you to seek a knowledge of your duty, and perform it 
to your own salvation, than to cling to known error because 
your parents believed it true ? Though you were to weep 
tears of blood on account of their mistake, you could not 
correct it. They are in the hands of a God whose infinite 
love and mercy will secure a just decision as to them ; and 
this is all you can know on the subject. You have an im- 
mortal spirit of your own, which must live in endless bliss 
with God and His Son in heaven, or writhe in eternal mis- 
ery with the devil and the damned. Oh, then, as you have 
a heaven to gain and a hell to shun, why not accept sal- 
vation upon the terms which God has proposed ? 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

IT is not our purpose to write a dissertation upon the 
nature, origin, or relationships of the Holy Spirit. 
Paul said, " Foolish and unlearned questions avoid, know- 
ing that they do gender strifes." 2 Tim. ii : 23. We are 
persuaded that there can be but little known of these sub- 
jects because there is but little revealed concerning them. 
" Secret things belong unto the Lord our God : but those 
things which are revealed belong unto us and to our chil- 
dren forever." Deut. xxix : 29. Why, then, should we 
worry ourselves over questions which our Father never 
revealed to us, and therefore never intended us to know ? 
There are more practical questions connected with the 
Holy Spirit of which we may know something, because 
God has spoken to us more definitely concerning them, 
and it is of them we propose to write. We are aware, too, 
that even these are not to be comprehended without effort ; 
nor are we vain enough to suppose that we are able to 
write an unexceptionable essay concerning them. Strong 
minds and devoted hearts have prayerfully perused the 
sacred pages of Holy Writ until their eyes have grown 
dim in age ; and, after all their toil, have closed their labors 
confessedly ignorant of the modus operandi of the Holy 
Spirit. Indeed the incomprehensibility of the subject is 
the theory advocated by many very able pens. By such, 
those who claim to understand the subject, are at once 

(57i) 



S7 2 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

suspected of denying the influence of the Spirit in conver- 
sion entirely. If you deny an incomprehensible influence 
of the Spirit, they know of no other, and hence conclude 
that you deny all spiritual influence. They are ever ready 
to quote John iii: 8; "The wind bloweth where it.listeth, 
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one 
that is born of the Spirit." In vain may you call their 
attention to the fact that the passage does not say " so is 
the Spirit," or "so is the operation of the Spirit." They 
have learned to so interpret it, and this is quite sufficient 
to end the investigation of the subject. They will regard 
it presumptuous in us to even attempt an examination of 
it. They will quote the old adage, " Fools rush on where 
angels fear to tread." But we beg them to remember that 
if we are ignorant of the subject, we will not be more likely 
to remain so, than those who do not examine it at all. If 
they and we close our Bibles and cease to investigate, we 
will all remain ignorant together. The divine volume 
contains many lessons on the subject, and surely our Father 
would not have said so much to us on a subject of which 
he intended us to remain entirely ignorant. We are, there- 
fore, encouraged to pursue our study of the sacred pages, 
with all the assistance we can get, in the hope that we may, 
at least, acquire a sufficient knowledge of what is taught 
concerning the Holy Spirit, to enable us to enjoy its com- 
forting influences in God's appointed way. 

Our Bible teaches us that there is not only one God and 
Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of this Father, 
but also that there is one Holy Spirit which proceeded from 
God, divine as is God from whom it proceeded. As the 
sun is the great center of the solar system from which 
emanates light and heat to the natural world, so God is 
not only Spirit, but the great center of the spiritual world 



THE HOLY SPIRIT. 573 

from whom emanated the Holy Spirit, giving light and 
comfort to the denizens of earth through the inspired word 
and the institutions and service appointed therein. 

John the Baptist said to those who came to be baptized 
of him in the Jordan : " I indeed baptize you with water 
unto repentance ; but he that cometh after me is mightier 
than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear ; he shall 
baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Matt, 
iii: ii. 

Paul says ; " Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I 
would not have you ignorant." And again : " Now there are 
diversities of gifts but the same Spirit." I Cor. xii : I, 4. 

After Jesus had told His disciples that it was needful 
for them that He should go away, in order that the Holy 
Spirit might come to and remain with them as an abiding 
Comforter, He said to them: '"When He is come He will 
reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of 
judgment." Johnxvi:i8. 

Paul, in his epistle to his brethren at Rome, said : " Ye 
have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, 
Father." Rom. viii : 15. And again: "The Spirit itself 
beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of 
God." Rom. viii : 16. 

Thus we find the Scripture speaking of the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit; secondly, of the gifts of the Spirit ; thirdly, 
the operation or work of the Spirit in reproving the world 
of sin, righteousness, and judgment, the reception of the 
Spirit by the children of the Father, and the witness of the 
Spirit. Paul charged Timothy, saying : " Study to show 
thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to 
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 
ii: 15. We know of no subject to the study of which this 
admonition is of more importance than that of the Holy 
Spirit. If we can rightly divide and apply the word of 



574 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

truth to the subject in hand, we will be aided much in at- 
taining to a knowledge of it. If we fail to do this, we may 
correctly learn something concerning it, but understand 
the subject as a system we never will. 

We have seen five separate departments of our subject 
spoken of in the passages quoted. Let us draw the line 
deep and wide between them, that we may keep them well 
apart until we examine them in the light of the Scriptures. 
Should we indiscriminately apply what was written with 
reference to any one of them, to any or all the others, we 
would certainly do violence to the teaching of the Spirit, 
and make an incomprehensible logomachy of the whole 
subject. Let us rightly divide our subject, and apply the 
Scriptures accordingly. First in order we will examine 

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 

That God promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit to 
certain persons, through John the Baptist, and also through 
Jesus His Son, is not disputed by any one ; and that this 
promise was verified on the day of Pentecost, and at the 
house of Cornelius, is believed by all. The matter in con- 
troversy is as to whether or not the baptism thus promised 
was to be special or general, temporary or perpetual. In 
other words, was it confined to the day of miracles ? or was 
it designed for, and promised to, the Christians of our day, 
yea, of all time ? 

First, then, we will examine the Scriptures relied on, to 
prove that persons are now baptized with the Holy Spirit. 
The first passage we will examine may be found in the 
prophecy of Joel ii : 28-30. " And it shall come to pass 
afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh ; 
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old 
men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions ; 
and also upon the servants, and upon the handmaids in 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 575 

those days will I pour out my Spirit ; and I will show won- 
ders in the heavens and in the earth, blood and fire, and 
pillars of smoke." That this prophecy had reference to the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit, to take place on the day of 
Pentecost is certain, from the fact that Peter quotes it as 
fulfilled in the events of that day. Acts ii : 16-19. As it 
is here said that the Spirit was to be poured out upon all 
flesh, it is insisted that those living now are a part of all 
flesh as well as those who lived then, and hence it must 
require all time to fulfill the prophecy, because if its fulfill- 
ment was restricted to the events of that day, it was not 
poured out upon all flesh. But if there are to be no re- 
strictions placed upon the phrase "all flesh" then the pas- 
sage will prove entirely too much. Paul tells us that " All 
flesh is not the same flesh : but there is one kind of flesh of 
men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another 
of birds." 1 Cor. xv: 39. Therefore, if the phrase "all 
flesh" is not to be limited, we not only have all men bap- 
tized with the Spirit, but also all beasts, birds, and fish. 
"Well, but it means all human flesh!' This proves too 
much yet ; for this would include the most wicked man of 
earth, as well as the best Christian. " But it means all 
Christians!' Stop ; you set out with the position that there 
are no restrictions to be put on the phrase all flesh ; now 
you cut off not only all beasts, birds, and fish, but also the 
larger portion of human flesh, for few go the narrow path, 
while the many go the broad road ; and these you will not 
allow to be baptized with the Spirit at all. This is doing 
pretty well. These restrictions are right ; may there not 
be others ? The sons and daughters who were the subjects 
of this baptism were to prophesy, the old men were to 
dream dreams, and the young men were to see visions. 
Are these phenomena exhibited by all Christians now? 
If not, the phrase all flesh must be pruned down until it 



j^yO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

embraces such, and only such, as can do the things spoken 
of. When Peter said, " This is that which was spoken by 
the prophet Joel," (Acts ii: 16) the disciples were prophe- 
sying, speaking with tongues, and doing the things spoken 
of by Joel ; hence we feel authorized to restrict the phrase 
" all flesh" to such as exhibited the signs predicted in the 
prophecy. Again : We have the fulfillment of this proph- 
ecy to take place at a specified time. " It shall come to 
pass in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my 
Spirit upon all flesh." Acts ii : 17. Certainly the last 
days here spoken of can not be the last days of time, for 
more than eighteen hundred years have gone by since Peter 
said, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel." 
And it would require great boldness to affirm that the 
phrase last days was intended to include all the days from 
the day of Pentecost to the end of time ; yet such must be 
the interpretation given to it, to make the fulfillment of 
Joel's prophecy include the Christians of all time, and 
therefore those of this day. The last days here spoken of 
by Joel must have been the last days of the Jewish dis- 
pensation, for it was in them that Peter tells us, " This is 
that which was spoken." The argument drawn from this 
prophecy to support the notion that persons are now bap- 
tized with the Holy Spirit is, therefore, evidently defective. 
The language of John the Baptist next claims our atten- 
tion. He said to those demanding baptism of him in the 
Jordan : " I indeed baptize you with water unto repent- 
ance ; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, 
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost and with fire : whose fan is in his 
hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather 
his wheat into the garner ; but he will, burn up the chaff 
with unquenchable fire." Matt, iii : II, 12. This address 
is recorded by Luke (iii: 16, 17), in very nearly the same 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



577 



words. Mark records an abridgment of it, thus: "There 
cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose 
shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I in- 
deed have baptized you with water ; but he shall baptize 
you with the Holy Ghost." Mark i : ?, 8. It is not im- 
portant to our investigation that we stop to inquire who 
were to be the subjects of the baptism of fire spoken of in 
the records by Matthew and Luke, as it is the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit which concerns us at present ; nor will we 
stop to inquire whether this was to be a figurative or a lit- 
eral baptism in the Holy Spirit. That it was literal is all 
that can be claimed, and this we are not only willing to 
grant, but firmly believe. But do these quotations prove 
that persons are now baptized with the Holy Spirit ? If 
they prove it at all, they must do it in one of two ways. 
First, the language employed must be sufficiently comprehen- 
sive to include us, or the principle taught must be applicable 
to us. First, then, who were the persons represented by the 
pronoun you in the sentence " He shall baptize you with 
the Holy Ghost ?" That this word could not have included 
even all Jo/ms audience is clear from the fact that some of 
them were wicked — comparable to chaff and to be burned 
with unquenchable fire. But even had it embraced every 
one to whom he spake, both wicked and good, it would 
still require very elastic rules of interpretation to make it 
embrace the Christians of all time. " I indeed baptize you 
with water * * * he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost 
and with fire." Can any fair rules of interpretation make 
the last you include more than the first you ? Surely not. 
Then it follows that those who were here promised the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost w^re among those baptized by 
John in water. 

Again : We have a rule of grammar saying: "Pronouns 
must agree with the nouns 'for which they stand, in gender, 
49 



578 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

lumber, and person!' If we respect this rule at all, how 
;an we make these pronouns include more, or other, per- 
sons than their antecedents in the preceding part of the 
chapter ? 

Once more : In oral discourse, the persons indicated by 
pronouns of the second person are always present with the 
speaker. This rule knows no exception. In written com- 
munications, persons represented by pronouns of the sec- 
ond person may be absent from the writer, but to a speaker 
they must be present. Let us apply this rule to the speech 
made by John the Baptist to the multitude on the banks 
of the Jordan. " I indeed baptize you with water * * * he 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." How can these 
pronouns of the second person embrace any persons not 
present before John when he used them ? If we apply 
this promise to other persons, we must derive authority for 
doing so from other sources than the language employed, 
for evidently it is not there. Then is there a principle 
taught applicable to us ? If so, we can not see it. The 
passage was a prophetic promise made to certain persons, 
to be fulfilled to them, and when so fulfilled, there was no 
general principle remaining applicable to any persons only 
such as are shown to be subjects of the baptism in question. 
That Christians are now such subjects is the matter to be 
droved — to assume it is to assume the whole controversy. 
We have seen that the language of John is incapable of 
proving it, either expressly or by implication. We would 
not be understood, however, to deny that any were bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost who were not of those baptized 
by John the Baptist in water. We know that others were 
so baptized, but this is not quite sufficient to prove that 
the language employed by John included them. We have 
been seeking to test the power of this passage to prove the 
doctrine in question. We know that it is confidently 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



579 



relied on to sustain the theory ; hence we have sought for 
the extent of its application and the time of its fulfillment. 
When Jesus was assembled with the apostles on one occa- 
sion, He " commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, 
but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye 
have heard of me ; for John truly baptized with water, but 
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
hence." Acts i : 4, 5. As Jesus here associates this prom- 
ise of the Father with John's baptism, it is next to certain 
that He here refers to the same promise which the Father 
made by John. This being so, we can scarcely fail to rec- 
ognize its. fulfillment on the day of Pentecost at Jerusalem, 
where they were commanded to wait for it. And though, 
in the three recorded accounts of John's discourse, we have 
no specific allusion to the time of its fulfillment, yet when 
Jesus quotes it, He says it shall be not many days hence, 
and commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem until 
it was fulfilled. When, therefore, we connect these pas- 
sages together, we see not how it is possible to look be- 
yond the day of Pentecost for the complete fulfillment of 
the promise of the Father made through John concerning 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 

But we may be told that Peter quoted this language at 
the house of Cornelius as applicable to the Gentiles, say- 
ing : "As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them 
as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word 
of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with 
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." 
Acts xi : 15, 16. This is sufficiently near the language 
quoted from Acts i: 4, 5, to make it probable that both 
passages refer to the same conversation. As God baptized 
the disciples with the Holy Spirit when the gospel was 
first proclaimed to the Jews, it was proper, for reasons 
which we will see in due time, that He should attend 



580 



THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



its introduction to the Gentiles by the like gift. But if the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit was then bestowed upon all con- 
verts, as we are told it now is, why did Peter associate it 
with the beginning? Why not have said : "As I began to 
speak the Holy Spirit fell on them as on all others con- 
verted ?" Surely, some such style would have been appro- 
priate. Many thousands had been converted from the day 
of Pentecost to that time, yet the language employed is 
calculated to make the impression that such an event 
had not come under their notice from the beginning until 
that time. 

We will notice one more passage only. " For by one 
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have 
been all made to drink into one Spirit." I Cor. xii : 13. 
Although this passage was written in close proximity to 
Paul's explanation of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, 
yet we are willing to admit the principle taught in it to be 
applicable to Christians generally, but it falls very far 
short of proving that they, or any of them, are baptized 
with the Holy Spirit. So far from it that it says not one 
word about it. By one Spirit are we all baptized into one 
body. There is one body (Eph. iv : 4) ; This is the church 
(Col. i : 18 and 24). There is one baptism (Eph. iv: 5), by 
which we enter this one body. Are we i-iow prepared to 
see the import of the passage ? By (the teaching of) one 
Spirit (the Holy Spirit) we are all baptized (in water) into 
one body (the church). This seems to be the obvious im- 
port of the passage, and it is in harmony with the whole 
tenor of the Spirit's teaching on the subject. But if we 
insist that it means "in one Spirit we are all baptized into 
one body," then we make Paul contradict himself, saying 
there is "one baptism." When he says: "There is one 
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 58 1 

he as clearly teaches that there is but one baptism, as he 
does that there is but one Lord or but one God and Father 
of all. The denominations themselves agree that by water 
baptism we enter the church ; if, therefore, they make this 
passage mean Holy Spirit baptism, they not only contra- 
dict Paul, but they contradict themselves. Surely, they 
will not do this. 

It is admitted by all that God's works, every- where, are 
a most wonderful exhibition of harmony and order. He 
has a place for every thing and every thing in its place — 
an office for every thing to fill, and every thing filling its 
own office. It is altogether probable, then, that the bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit was designed for some appropriate 
work, and not given to accomplish any thing, every thing, 
or nothing, as might chance to happen. It is, then, of the 
first importance that we seek for the office assigned it in 
the gospel plan of salvation. What say you, gentle reader, 
on this subject ? What do you want with it ? What do you 
expect it to do for you? The first work usually assigned 
it in the theories of modern times, is the removal of the 
depravity or corruption of nature supposed to have beer 
inherited from our illustrious progenitors as a result o« 
their sin, or rather, our sin in them. It is assumed that 
man comes into the world totally depraved, wholly defiled 
in all the faculties and parts of soul and body, opposed to 
all good and wholly inclined to all evil, in consequence of 
which he can not will or desire any thing good accompany- 
ing salvation until this depravity is removed or modified by 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For an examination of 
this assumption the reader is referred to the chapter on 
Hereditary Depravity. 

Suppose, however, that this is really a true picture of 
nan's nature, and he can do nothing until God enables him 
to do it by baptizing him with the Holy Spirit. What 



5 82 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

then ? If God has to administer it, and man can do noth- 
ing until it is done, and it is never done at all, who is to 
blame for it ? Will God sentence the sinner to hell and 
there punish him forever for not obeying the gospel, when 
it was no fault of his that he did not do it ? The baptism 
of the Holy Spirit was a miracle, emphatically a miracle, 
.performed by yestis Himself. If, therefore, all converts of 
our day are baptized with it, it follows that there is a mir- 
acle performed every time a conversion takes place, and 
miracles will continue as long as there is a subject con- 
verted to God ; and the conversion of every man is sus- 
pended upon the performance of a miracle of which he has 
not the slightest control, for until it is performed he can 
not even desire it, or will any good thing accompanying it. 

But was the removal of depravity the object to be accom- 
plished by the baptism of the Spirit anciently ? The first 
case, of which we have a record, took place on the day of 
Pentecost, and the disciples were the subjects of it on that 
occasion. Had the apostles been more than three years 
with the Lord, and been sent by Him to preach the ap- 
proach of the kingdom " to the lost sheep of the house of 
Israel" (Matt, x: 5-7), with power to perform miracles in 
His name, and, finally, to preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture, with power to bind and loose on earth, with the assur- 
ance that their acts should be ratified in heaven, and yet 
their hearts totally depraved, wholly disposed to evil and 
opposed to all good until they were baptized with the Holy 
Spirit on the day of Pentecost ? Are we prepared for this 7 

But we are told that the three thousand converts of that 
day were also baptized with it. Is there any proof of this? 
The record says : " Peter stood up in the midst of the dis- 
ciples, the number of names together were about a hundred 
and twenty." Acts i: 5. "And when the day of Pente- 
cost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



583 



place * * * and they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and 
began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them 
utterance." Who were with one accord in one place ? The 
disciples. Who were all filled with the Holy Ghost ? The 
disciples. Who began to speak with other tongues as 
moved by the Holy Ghost ? The disciples. Not a word 
about any one else being with them. But "when this was 
noised abroad, the multitude came together." Ver. 6. 
Then it was not until after the baptism of the disciples 
with the Holy Spirit that the multitude came together, 
from among whom the three thousand were converted. 
Not a word in the narrative about their having been bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost. They were promised the gift 
of the Holy Spirit if they would " repent, and be baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins ;" 
but even this was not until they had heard and believed 
Peter's preaching, and were cut to the heart by it, which 
modern teachers insist they could not have been until 
they were baptized with it. 

We will next examine the case of Cornelius. Please 
notice his character before he was baptized with the Holy 
Spirit. He was "a devout man, and one that feared God 
with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, 
and prayed to God always." Acts x : 2. And was his 
heart totally depraved, wholly corrupt, the opposite of all 
good? Really, it seems he had good thoughts and did 
good deeds before he was baptized, either with Spirit or 
water. Then it follows, that the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit was not intended to remove his depravity and make 
him devoted, charitable, or prayerful, for he was all these 
before. We insist that if you purify the heart by the bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit, you thereby annul the office of 
faith. With reference to the Gentiles, Peter says, " God, 
which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them 



584 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us ; and put no differ- 
ence between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." 
Acts xv : 8, 9. Here we find, that in cases where the Gen- 
tiles received the Holy Spirit, it was not to purify the heart, 
for this was done by faith. Suppose you have a clock, the 
machinery of which is propelled by weights. You remove 
the weights from their place, and propel the machinery of 
the clock by springs, what further use have you for the 
weights ? So, if you purify the heart by the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit, what further use have you for faith ? But we 
are sometimes told that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is 
to produce faith. Then when Paul said, " So then faith 
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God " (Rom. 
x: 17), he should have said, " So then faith cometh by the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit." 

Again : It is insisted that the baptism of the Holy Spirit 
is for, or in order to, the remission of sins, and that this is 
its office in the gospel plan of salvation. Then it follows, 
that the apostles were three years the chosen companions 
of Jesus, sent by Him to preach to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel, with power to perform miracles in His 
name, and still unpardoned until baptized on the day of 
Pentecost. "John did baptize in the wilderness and preach 
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And 
there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of 
Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of 
Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark i : 4, 5. Thus John 
made " Ready a people prepared for the Lord." Luke i : 
17. Jesus selected His apostles from the material thus 
prepared for him. Does any one believe that, when they 
were baptized by John for the remission of sins, that they 
were still unpardoned until baptized with the Holy Spirit 
on the day of Pentecost ? If not, then the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit was not for the remission of their sins. Paul 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 585 

informs us that there is " one Lord, one Faith, and one 
Baptism." Eph. iv : 5. That this one haptism is for the 
remission of sins, we believe, is admitted by all. All agree 
that the one Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, Faith, Baptism, God, 
and Father of all, spoken of in this connection, by the 
apostle to his Ephesian brethren, are essential to the re- 
mission of sins, spiritual growth, and final happiness of in- 
telligent men and women in a land of Bibles. But those 
who would disparage the worth of baptism in water always 
insist that this one baptism is " Holy Ghost baptism." If 
we can dispel this delusion, we will have done much to 
settle the unfortunate controversy, with regard to the 
design of baptism in water. First, then, we would inquire 
of those who advocate this theory, and believe themselves 
to have received this one baptism in the Holy Spirit, why 
they still submit to baptism with water in any form ? 
Surely, if they have been baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
that is 07ie baptism ; yes, verily, if their theory be true, it is 
the one baptism; hence, if they subsequently add to this 
another, in water, they have not one, but two baptisms, and 
Paul should have said : " There is one Lord, one faith, and 
two Baptisms." But we may be told that " Cornelius was 
baptized with the Holy Spirit and was subsequently bap- 
tized with water, in obedience to the command of God 
through Peter, which proves that we may have two bap- 
tisms." If this proof is conclusive, will the objector be so 
good as to assist Paul in extricating himself from the diffi- 
culty in which he is placed by saying " There is one bap- 
tism." If he will say, with us, that the baptism of the 
Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, with the Holy Spirit, 
was a miracle, such as has not occurred from that time to 
the present (of which we have a record), and allow that, 
when Paul said " There is one baptism," he alluded to the 
baptism to which the taught of all nations are to submit 



586 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

(Matt, xxviii 119), and that was enjoined upon " every crea- 
ture " who would believe the gospel and be saved (Mark 
xvi : 16), which was connected with repentance for the re- 
mission of sins (Acts ii : 38), that now saves the people who 
rightly submit to it (1 Peter iii : 21), and to which all must 
submit, or fail to enter the kingdom of God (John iii : 5), 
then we can see perfect harmony in the Scriptures, and a 
fitness in Paul's language saying : " there is one baptism." 
Again: When persons were baptized with the Holy 
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, "they were all filled with 
the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as 
the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts ii : 4. There was 
an absolute impact of the Holy Spirit with the human 
Spirit; and hence, being filled with the Holy Spirit, their 
spirits were energized — inspired by the Holy Spirit which 
took possession of them — and through them spake forth the 
wonderful and mighty works of God in languages hitherto 
unknown to them. The same cause produces the same 
effect on all occasions, if surrounded by the same circum- 
stances. Baptism with the Holy Spirit, on the day of 
Pentecost, enabled those who received it to speak with 
tongues, hence, if we can find another case on record, we 
may expect the same results ; for of this law in nature God 
is as much the author as he is the author of the Bible. 
Accordingly, when Cornelius and his house were baptized 
with it, " they heard them speak with tongues and magnify 
God." Acts x: 46. Now, as this law obtained in the cases 
recorded, we must insist that those who claim to have been 
baptized with the Holy Spirit, must, under its influence, 
speak in languages before unknown to them ; or give us 
some good reason why their cases are exceptions to the 
rule. And, were they even to speak with other tongues, 
this would not be conclusive, for although this always fol- 
lowed the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and its absence 



THE BAFTISM OF T'AE HOLY SPIRIT. 587 

would bar the claim Vo such baptism, yet there were per- 
sons enabled to speak witn tongues, and prophesy, who 
had not been baptized with the Spirit. This we will see 
more clearly when we come to examine the subject of spir- 
itual gifts. As Paul tells us that there is " one baptism," 
we have only to show that baptism in water is enjoined 
upon all nations, and every creature who believes the gos- 
pel and would be saved, in order to show that there is now 
no such a thing as Holy Spirit baptism, and hence, tha/ 
there is not a man, woman, or child, alive to-day who h«u 
been the subject of it. In the commission, Jesus says, 
" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost." Matt, xxviii : 19. Now, her«j is a baptism 
to which the taught of all nations are to submit ; for it 
would have been anomalous had Jesus co nmanded the 
apostles to baptize them without, at least, an implied 
obligation on their part to submit to it. Hence, if ther^ 
be one baptism, and only one, this is the > aptism, besides 
which there is not another. There is no escape from this 
position. Then, the only remaining question to be settled 
is, did the Saviour here allude to water baptism ? Does 
any one doubt it? If so, from whenc. crmes their au- 
thority to baptize with or in water, in 'Jt*e names here set 
forth ; that is, in the names of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ? 
And as Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Ghjst, and no 
human being ever had power to administer this baptism ; 
and as the apostles were commanded to administer one, 
it is certain that it was not Holy Ghost baptism. Once 
more : This was to be administered in the name of the Holy 
Ghost ; and as it is not probable that the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost would have been administered in its own name, 
it is not probable that this was that kind of baptism. 
We have seen that there was an implied command in the 



588 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

commission to the taught of all nations to submit to this 
baptism, and in keeping therewith we find the apostles 
commanding persons to be baptized: "Repent, and be 
baptized, every one of you." Acts ii : 38. "And he com- 
manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 
Acts x : 48. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not a 
command but a promise. "And being assembled together 
with them, commanded them that they should not depart 
from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, 
which, saith He, ye have heard of me." What promise ? 
" For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Acts i : 
4, 5. As baptism in water is a command, and the baptism 
of the Holy Spirit is a promise and not a command, it fol- 
lows, that when the apostles commanded baptism, they 
meant water baptism. Paul speaks of himself and Roman 
brethren as having been buried with Christ by baptism, 
and finally tells them, "ye have obeyed from the heart the 
form of doctrine which was delivered you ; being then 
made free from sin." Rom. vi : 17, 18. When were they 
made free from sin ? When they obeyed the form of doc- 
trine. What form of doctrine ? He was speaking of a 
baptism in submission to which they obeyed, and were then 
made free from sin. Was this Holy Ghost baptism ? No ; 
there was no obedience in that — it was a promise, not a 
command. Promises may be enjoyed, but can not be 
obeyed. Commands are to be obeyed in order that the 
promises connected therewith, if any, may be enjoyed. 
Water is the only element in which the Romans were com- 
manded to be baptized ; and hence baptism in it was the 
only baptism they could have obeyed in order that they 
might be made free from sin. This form of doctrine we 
have already examined. 

But it is insisted that we must have the baptism of the 






THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 589 

Ho!; Spirit as evidence of pardon and acceptance with God. 
Then we ask, had the apostles, who received it on the day 
of Pentecost, no evidence of their acceptance during their 
personal intercourse with the Saviour prior to that day ? 
And did it give evidence to Cornelius of his acceptance 
before he obeyed the gospel ? Now, we propose to show 
that persons were pardoned under the gospel dispensation, 
and had reliable evidence of the fact, who had not been 
baptized with the Holy Spirit. Let us see. " Then Philip 
went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ unto 
them." Acts viii : 5. " When they believed Philip preach- 
ing the things concerning the kingdom of God and the 
name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and 
women." Ver. 12. Now are they saved? Does any one 
doubt it? Do the advocates of modern Holy Ghost bap- 
tism command men and women to be baptized, whom they 
regard as unsaved, when they have been baptized ? Nay, 
verily ! So far from it, that they believe them pardoned 
before baptism. Then, according to their own theory, these 
persons were saved. If men are saved by faith only, before 
baptism they believed and were therefore saved ; and if it 
required faith and baptism, they had believed and been 
baptized and were still saved. So they were saved in any 
aspect of the case. But they had still further evidence of 
pardon. Jesus had said " He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved." Mark xvi : 16. This language is 
not ambiguous, we can not fail to understand it. Luke 
says they did believe and were baptized, hence, if Jesus 
spake truly when He issued the proclamation, and Luke 
correctly recorded what they did, it follows, unmistakably, 
that they were pardoned, and had the word of the Lord as 
evidence of the fact. Were they yet baptized with the 
Holy Ghost ? " Now when the apostles which were at 
Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of 



590 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they 
were come down prayed for them, that they might receive 
the Holy Ghost, for as yet he was fallen upon none of them : 
only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
Acts viii : 14, 16. While it is true that the baptism of the 
Holy Spirit was not the measure of it which Peter and 
John designed to confer upon the disciples at Samaria, 
yet the context clearly shows that it had not fallen upon 
any of them in any form, they having only received what 
ordinarily followed adoption into the family of God ; still 
they were pardoned — saved beyond a peradventure. Then 
if the Samaritans could and did believe the gospel, and be 
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and have His word 
as evidence that they were saved without the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit, why may we not do the same thing? If any 
one supposes himself to have been baptized with the Holy 
Spirit in order to his conversion, then we would like to 
know whether or not he supposes himself to have been 
converted as were the Samaritans ? Should he claim to 
have been pardoned in a different way, then we would 
inquire how many ways of pardon are there for the same 
class of persons ? 

But we have not yet found the purposes for which the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit was administered in the cases 
of which we have a record. Soon after His baptism, Jesus 
selected twelve men, to whom it was His purpose to com- 
mit the first proclamation of the gospel which was to be 
the power of God for the salvation of men ; these he re- 
quired to forsake parents, friends, occupations — every 
thing — and follow Him, that their minds might be free 
to receive the instruction necessary to a thorough prep- 
aration for the work assigned them. For three and a half 
years He ceased not to instruct them in the things per- 
taining to His kingdom ; and though they had left all to 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



591 



follow one so poor that He had not where to lay His weary 
head, He comforted them, saying : " I appoint unto you a 
kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me ; that ye 
may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke xxii : 
29, 30. Knowing the events that were soon to occur in 
their presence — that He should be put to death, and go to 
His Father, leaving them to plead His cause in the midst 
of persecution and death — He faithfully told them of all 
that should befall them, but that He would remember them 
in prayer to His Father: "I will pray the Father, and he 
shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with 
you forever : even the Spirit of truth ; whom the world 
can not receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth 
him : but ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you, and shall 
be in you." John xiv : 16, 17. This Comforter was not, 
like Him, to be taken from them, but to remain with them 
forever. But said He : " Because I have said these things 
unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I 
tell you the truth ; It is expedient for you that I go away : 
for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; 
but if I depart, I will send him unto you." John xvi: 6, 7. 
Why was it expedient for them that He should go away ? 
" When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you 
from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth 
from the Father, he shall testify of me." John xv : 26. 
They "trusted that it had been he which should have 
redeemed Israel." Luke xxiv : 41. But when He was 
crucified their hopes died with Him, and, in despair, they 
went, each one, to his former occupation. When He gave 
them proof that He had risen from the dead, they took cour- 
age, and determined to await the promised power from on 
high. But when the Holy Spirit came from heaven, bear- 
ing to them the glorious tidings of His coronation as King 



592 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of kings and Lord of lords, it filled their hearts with joy 
and gladness ; yea, they rejoiced to know that He was at 
His Father's right hand, as their adorable High Priest and 
Mediator, and would there remain to make intercession for 
His children, until His foes should become His footstool. 
Truly did the Comforter, on that day, bear witness of Him, 
for then were they bold to declare that he was " by the right 
hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the 
promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which 
ye now see and hear." Acts ii : 33. 

Again : Notwithstanding He had been with them, and 
had faithfully instructed them in the great scheme of man's 
salvation, still they were human, and liable to forget the im- 
portant lessons He had given them ; hence He told them that 
" the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and 
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have 
said unto you." John xiv : 26. Though He had many things 
to say to them which, in their weakness, they were not able 
to bear, and which, for their good, He graciously declined 
then to reveal, he assured them that " when he, the Spirit 
of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 
xvi: 13) ; and thus He prepared them to eventually receive 
what He could not then tell them. 

Once more : their commission required them to " preach 
the gospel to every creature," to " teach all nations." How 
could these ignorant Galileans preach the gospel among 
all nations, to every creature in the numerous languages 
then spoken ? " There were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, 
devout men, out of every nation under heaven." Acts ii : 5. 
Truly, here was a difficulty. But they were to "tarry at 
Jerusalem until endued with power from on high." This 
power they were to receive after that the Holy Ghost came 
upon them. This completed the preparations. How could 



THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 593 

they then err ? They could not despair, for the Spirit gave 
them comfort from heaven. They could not forget any 
thing, for the Spirit was to strengthen their memory. 
What Jesus lacked of perfecting their instructions the 
Spirit supplied by guiding them into all truth. Were 
mere many nations and divers languages ? The baptism 
of the Holy Spirit enabled them to speak to every man in 
his own tongue wherein he was born ; and thus they were 
enabled to preach to every creature among all nations ; 
and the Comforter through them reproved the world of 
sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Only one thing 
more and the scheme is complete. " Other sheep have I 
which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and 
they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and 
one shepherd." John x : 16. But how shall this be done? 
The Jews then, like the Calvinists now, regarded them- 
selves as the favored few for whom Jesus died, and thought 
it not meet to take the children's bread and give it to 
dogs. Tence, it took a miracle to convince Peter that 
it was his duty to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Six 
of his Jewish brethren accompanied him to the house of 
Cornelius, where God poured out the Holy Ghost on the 
Gentiles as on the disciples at Jerusalem on Pentecost. 
"And they of the circumcision which believed were aston- 
ished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gen- 
tiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For 
they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God." 
Acts x : 45, 46. This satisfied those of the Jews who were 
with Peter and witnessed it ; and when he rehearsed the 
whole matter from the beginning to the apostles and breth- 
ren who were at Jerusalem, " they held their peace and 
glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles 
granted repentance unto life." Acts xi : 18. Thus we see 
a necessity for God to baptize the Gentiles at the house of 
5^ 



594 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Cornelius with the Holy Spirit — not to convert those who 
received it, or in any way benefit them — but that the Jews 
might " perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but 
in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteous- 
ness, is accepted with him." Acts x : 34, 35. 

We wish, in conclusion, to call attention to the striking 
difference in the forms of speech used with reference to 
water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism. " Go teach all 
nations, baptizing them." " Preach the gospel to every 
creature ; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
Every creature, among all nations, who is capable of hear- 
ing and believing the gospel, may be baptized with the 
baptism connected with faith as a condition of salvation. 

How very different the style when speaking of Holy 
Spirit baptism ! " He shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire." " Ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost not many days hence." When speaking of that 
coming down to us and designed to be perpetual, the style 
is all nations, every creature ; but when speaking of Holy 
Spirit baptism it is you, ye, and this is the extent of it. 
Kind reader, is not this significant ? 

The Gifts of the Holy Spikit. 

Speaking of the Son of God, John the Baptist said : 
" God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." John 
iii : 34. This language clearly implies, as stated elsewhere, 
that God gave the Spirit by measure to others. Indeed, 
it may be safely said that Jesus was the only person who 
ever possessed the Spirit without measure — who was al- 
ways speaking and doing the things suggested by it. The 
prophets and apostles spake and acted under it occasion- 
ally, He always. But we have seen that there was a bap- 
tism with the Spirit which was a measure of it sufficient 
to temporarily possess and inspire those who received it. 



THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 595 

This measure of the Spirit was the promise of the Father, 
and was given by Him through His Son to the disciples 
on the day of Pentecost, and to the Gentiles at the house 
of Cornelius. See Acts xi : 17. But we must be careful 
that we do not confound the Spirit with the gifts of the 
Spirit. The inspiration and energizing influences of the 
Spirit are not the Spirit. But there was another measure 
of the Spirit which was capable of imparting extraordinary 
gifts to the disciples, which we propose to examine for a 
time. That this measure of the Spirit was different from 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is evident from the fact 
that the latter always required a divine administrator t while 
the measure under consideration was imparted by the lay- 
ing on of apostolic hands. That this measure of the Spirit 
was different from the ordinary measure received by all 
Christians is clear from several considerations. First : It 
was imparted by the apostles through the imposition of 
their hands, as before stated, while the ordinary measure 
was received by the hearing of faith. See Gal. iii : 2. 
Second : Miraculous power was always imparted by it, and 
manifested by those who received it, while no such mani- 
festations attend the ordinary measure. Third : At Sama- 
ria and other places, persons believed the gospel and were 
baptized, and, therefore, enjoyed the ordinary measure of 
the Spirit for some time before this measure was imparted 
to them by the apostles. The power to impart this meas- 
~e of the Spirit was what Simon sought to purchase with 
imney, and was called by Peter "the gift of God" (Acts 
viii : 20), because God gave it to the apostles, who alone 
possessed it. Though this power of imparting the Spirit 
by the imposition of apostolic hands was the gift of God, 
it was neither the Spirit nor the gift of the Spirit. And 
the Spirit itself, though given in different measures, at 
different times, to different persons, in different ways, for 



596 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

different purposes, was always the gift of God and the same 
Spirit. There is one Spirit, and only one ; hence, Paul 
says : " There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." 
i Cor. xii : 4. We have seen that baptism with the Holy 
Spirit required a divine administrator, hence on the day 
of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius it came from 
heaven in its amplitude — "the self-same Spirit dividing to 
every man severally as he would " the measures and mani- 
festations appropriate to each. 

The phrase "the gift of the Holy Ghost" occurs Acts 
ii : 38, and x : 45, and in both places must be understood 
as equivalent to " the Holy Spirit as a gift," yet we are 
persuaded that the same measure of the Spirit is not 
alluded to in both places. "While Peter yet spake these 
words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the 
word. And they of the circumcision which believed were 
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on 
the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost ; for they heard them speak with tongues and mag- 
nify God." Acts x : 44-46. That this was that measure 
called the baptism of the Holy Spirit is plain from the fact 
that when Peter rehearsed the matter before his brethren, 
he said : "As I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on 
them as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the 
word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized 
with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" 
(Acts xi : 15, 16); thus quoting the language of the Lord 
concerning baptism with the Holy Ghost as applicable to 
this event. But it was not until after the Holy Spirit had 
been poured out on the disciples "at the beginning," on 
the day of Pentecost, that the multitude came together, to 
whom Peter promised the Holy Ghost as a gift ; hence, it 
could not have been the baptism of it to which he referred 
when he said: "Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 



TIIK GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



597 



Ghost." Acts ii : 38. But did Peter here mean the Holy- 
Spirit itself, in some measure of it ; or did he mean that 
they should receive something imparted to them by the 
Spirit ? Paul says : " There are diversities of gifts, but the 
sawe Spirit." Peter did not say : " Ye shall receive the 
gift, a gift, some gift, or any gift of the Spirit, but the 
gift of the Holy Spirit." He uses the singular number 
and definite article ; hence we conclude he must be under- 
stood to mean some measure of the Holy Spirit itself. 

But to what measure of the Spirit did the apostle allude ? 
We have seen that he did not allude to the baptism of it ; 
then it only remains for us to inquire whether he alluded 
to the ordinary measure which always follows as a neces- 
sary result of adoption into God's family ; or did he mean 
to promise them an extraordinary endowment of it peculiar 
to the apostolic times ? We can not regard it very impor- 
tant to settle this matter in favor of one question or the 
other. All agree that there were extraordinary endow- 
ments of the Spirit conferred upon those, or at least many of 
them, who believed and obeyed the gospel in the apostolic 
times ; and all agree that all Christians, from then until 
now, receive the Spirit of adoption — that all Christians 
may unite in saying : " The love of God is shed abroad in 
our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." 
Rom. v : 5. While good and true men differ as to how the 
Spirit is received, all agree that it is received and in some 
sense dwells in every Christian. It is not important, there- 
fore, whether Peter referred to this or that measure of the 
Spirit ; yet it may not be amiss to state that, as the apos- 
tles had power to communicate the Spirit in an extraor- 
dinary measure to such as believed and obeyed the gospel 
under their ministry, and as they deemed it so important 
that the primitive Christians should thus extraordinarily 
receive it, as to send Peter and John from. Jerusalem to 



rgS THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Samaria to confer it upon the disciples first made there, 
we are inclined to think that Peter intended to promise 
something more than the ordinary measure of the Spirit 
to those he addressed at the beginning. Surely, it was as 
important that the first disciples made at Jerusalem should 
receive the extraordinary endowment as it was that those 
of Samaria, Ephesus, and other places should receive it 
Nay, more ; there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout 
men, from every nation under heaven, and it is fair to sup- 
pose that some of every nation were converted on that oc- 
casion ; and it is more than probable that it was through 
these men that the commission was carried out. The 
apostles preached to all nations on that day ; and when the 
persons there converted returned to their homes, bearing 
the gospel to every creature, the commission was carried 
out — "their sound went into all the earth and their words 
unto the ends of the world." Rom. x: 18. Surely, if 
these gifts of the Spirit were for the confirmation of the 
Word in Jerusalem, Samaria, and Ephesus at its first proc- 
lamation, it was not less important that these converts, 
who were to go into all the world with the gospel, should 
be able to confirm its truth when they first preached it in 
their respective countries. Hence, we conclude that Peter 
promised the Spirit to such as would believe and obey the 
gospel there in as ample measure as he had power to impart 
it to them. Why should he not thus amply bestow it upon 
them, having the power to do so ? and why should he not 
thus amply promise it to them ? Did he wish to bestow 
it upon them without apprising them of it, that he might 
afford them an agreeable surprise ? But as a settlement 
of this matter could have no practical bearing upon our 
investigation, the subject is not worth debating, and we 
will not consume further space with it. Our purpose is, 
more particularly, to show that there were extraordinary 



THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 599 

manifestations of the Spirit in the apostolic times, what 
they were, and how they were conferred, that they were 
to cease, have ceased, how and when they ceased, and con- 
sequently need not be expected now. 

Jesus said, in the final commission : "Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow 
them that believe ; In my name shall they cast out devils ; 
they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up ser- 
pents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt 
them ; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall re- 
cover." Mark xvi : 15-18. By this we see that signs were 
not confined to the apostles alone, but were to follow them 
that believe. This has been a sweet morsel to infidels from 
the time miracles ceased until now. The Mormon claims 
to exhibit these signs now ; and he sneeringly tells you 
that you do not believe your own book. It says: "He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned." You believe that ; oh yes ! 
but when it says " these signs shall follow them that be- 
lieve," you do not believe that. Yes, we believe it all ; 
but we will not allow an infidel to divide and interpret 
it for us. 

We were once asked by an infidel why these signs do 
not follow them that believe. Jesus said they should fol- 
low them that believe. Persons profess to believe, and still 
we do not see the signs following. What is the reason ? 
Until such persons learn to discriminate between things 
ordinary and extraordinary — until they can " rightly divide 
the word of truth " — it will ever be unintelligible to them. 
They never will understand it, and therefore never will 
have any well-grounded faith in it. Nor do we think it at 
all strange that persons should fail to understand the sub- 



600 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

ject of the Spirit's influence, and therefore teach that it is 
enveloped in mystery — entirely incomprehensible to finite 
minds, who mix up the baptism, gifts, reception, and oper- 
ation of the Holy Spirit. Nor is it strange that they fail 
to understand us and continue to misrepresent our teach- 
ing ; for when we deny them the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit, which they have failed to distinguish from the op- 
eration of the Spirit, and therefore regard them as one and 
the same thing, it is natural that they should understand 
us to deny the operation of the Spirit in denying the bap- 
tism of it. But Jesus said these signs should follow them 
that believe. Did they follow ? At Samaria " the people 
with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip 
spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For 
unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many 
that were possessed with them : and many taken with pal- 
sies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was 
great joy in that city." Acts viii : 6-8. Here we find that 
the very things which Jesus said should follow, really did 
follow. 

We next propose to show that these signs which Jesus 
said should follow them that believe, and which we have 
seen did follow, were among the gifts of the Spirit. What 
were the gifts ? " To one is given by the Spirit the word 
of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by the same 
Spirit ; to another faith by the same Spirit ; to another the 
gifts of healing by the same Spirit ; to another the work- 
ing of miracles ; to another prophecy ; to another discern- 
ing of spirits ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; to an- 
other the interpretation of tongues : but all these worketh 
that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man 
severally as he will." i Cor. xii : 8-n. Thus we see that 
these gifts of the Spirit were the same things which Jesus 
said should follow them that believe, and which we have 



THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. OOI 

found, at Samaria and other places, did follow. Before 
leaving this quotation it may be well to remark that no 
one man possessed all the gifts, but they were given, one 
to this, and another to that man — "the self-same Spirit 
dividing to every man severally" the gifts appropriate to 
each. 

How, then, was the Spirit imparted by which these gifts 
were conferred ? As the baptism of the Holy Spirit en- 
abled those who received it to speak with tongues — and 
speaking with tongues is here said to be one of the gifts 
of the Spirit — is it true that all these miraculously-en- 
dowed persons were baptized with the Spirit ? We think 
not. The baptism of the Spirit was the gift of the Father 
(Acts ii : 4), sent from heaven by the Son. No human be- 
ing was ever intrusted with the administration of it; but 
when these spiritual gifts were to be manifested, " then laid 
they their Jiands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 
And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apos- 
tles hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them 
money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomso- 
ever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." Acts 
viii : 17-19. Then it was through the laying on of the 
apostles' hands that God gave the Holy Ghost to believ- 
ers, by which these extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were 
conferred. And it is expressly said that Simon " had nei- 
ther part nor lot in this matter" (Acts viii: 21) ; and we 
suppose he had as much part and lot in it as had any one 
else save the apostles. 

That these spiritual gifts were uniformly imparted by 
the laying on of apostolic hands, is made probable by the 
fact that the presence of an apostle was indispensable to the 
reception of them. Had it been possible for the apostles 
to have imparted these gifts by prayer, it occurs to us that 
a useless trip from Jerusalem to Samaria was imposed upon 
5* 



502 THE GOSPEL PLAN OP SALVATION. 

Peter and John. Certainly, their prayers would have been 
as efficacious in that city as in this : they would have been 
addressed to God, who could hear in one place and answer 
in another — and did so in numerous instances (see Matt. 
\iii: 5-13). He was God afar off as well as near by. Paul 
said to his brethren at Rome : " I long to see you, that I 
may impart unto you some spiritual gift." Rom. i: 11. 
This shows, most clearly, that, however much Paul desired 
to impart spiritual gifts, he had not the power until he 
could visit those to whom he would impart them". When 
he passed through the upper coasts of Asia and came to 
Ephesus, he found certain disciples, of whom he inquired : 
" Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? " 
By this it seems to have been customary for the apostles 
to impart this endowment of the Spirit to the disciples 
wherever they met them, unless they had previously re- 
ceived it. Hence, finding that these disciples were en- 
tirely ignorant of it, and that they had been baptized with 
John's baptism after its validity had ceased, he instructed 
them in the way of the Lord more perfectly, after which 
"they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And 
when Paul had laid his Jiands upon them, the Holy Ghost 
came on them ; and they spake with tongues, and prophe- 
sied." Acts xix : 5, 6. Then, whether this endowment 
was ever imparted otherwise than by the laying on of 
apostolic hands or not, it is certain that they did impart 
it in this way ; and we have no account of its ever being 
imparted in any other way — and they could not impart it 
without being present, where their hands, at least, could 
have been laid on. 

From this stand-point it is easy to see when and how 
these signs, or spiritual gifts, ceased. As none but the 
apostles, as instruments in the hands of God, had power 
to impart this endowment of the Spirit to those who be- 



THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 603 

lieved and obeyed the gospel, it is obvious that when they 
died, the power to work miracles necessarily ceased to be 
conferred upon any person ; and when all died who had 
received the power at the hands of the apostles, they, of 
course, ceased to be performed. That none but the apos- 
tles had power to impart that measure of the Holy Ghost 
by which these gifts were conferred, is plain from the fact 
that " when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard 
that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto 
them Peter and John : who, when they were come down, 
prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost." 
Acts viii : 14, 15. Philip, it seems, had the power to exer- 
cise the gifts of the Spirit, but, not being an apostle, he 
could not transfer this power to any one else ; hence the 
necessity of sending Peter and John to them for that pur- 
pose — the apostles alone possessing such power. 

As we have said that this Philip, who preached the gos- 
pel to the Samaritans, was not an apostle, and as one of 
the apostles was named Philip, it may be well for us to turn 
aside long enough to examine this matter a little. 

The New Testament clearly speaks of three persons 
named Philip : 

First. Philip, the brother of Herod, whose wife was He- 
rodias, at the request of whom Herod had John the Bap- 
tist's head taken off. This Philip was " tetrarch of Iturea 
and of the region of Trachonitis " Luke iii : 1. 

Second. The apostle Philip, of whom we have an account 
as one of the twelve — Matt, x : 3 ; Mark iii : 18 ; Luke vi : 
14 ; and as one of the eleven, after the fall of Judas, and 
before the election of Matthias — Acts i: 13. This Philip 
"was of Bethsaida of Galilee." John xii : 21. 

TJiird. Philip the evangelist, who lived in Cesarea, into 
whose house Paul and company entered ; and who " had 
four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." Acts xxi : 



604 



THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



8, 9. He " was one of the seven." Acts xxi : 8. What 
seven ? " Then the twelve called the multitude of the dis- 
ciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should 
leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, breth- 
ren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, 
full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint 
over this business. But we will give ourselves continually 
to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the say- 
ing pleased the whole multitude : and they chose Stephen, 
a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and 
Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and 
Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch ; whom they set before the 
apostles." Acts vi : 2-6. 

Could any thing be more plain ? The apostle Philip was 
one of the tivelve who declined to leave the ministry of the 
Word, and commanded the selection of seven others from 
among the disciples, one of whom was Philip ; hence the 
language : " We entered into the house of PJiilip the evan- 
gelist, which zuas one of the seven; and abode with him." 
Acts xxi : 8. Following up the history of these seven from 
their appointment in the sixth chapter of Acts, we find in 
the seventh chapter an account of the death of Stephen. 
The second verse of the eighth chapter speaks of his buri- 
al ; then, in close connection, the fifth verse declares that 
" Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached 
Christ unto them." Then can we be mistaken in saying 
that this was Philip the evangelist, but not the apostle 
Philip ? " Now when the apostles which were at Jerusa- 
lem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they 
sent unto them Peter and John : who, when they were 
come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the 
Holy Ghost : (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them : 
only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the 



THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 



605 



Holy Ghost." Acts viii: 14-17. Had this Philip, who was 
already at Samaria, been an apostle, why the necessity of 
.sending Peter and John from Jerusalem to Samaria that 
they might impart the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan dis- 
ciples ? Surely, one apostle could have done this as well 
as others. Are our readers sufficiently acquainted with 
the Samaritan preacher ? then we will return to the exam- 
ination of spiritual gifts. 

These gifts were not given as toys, to be sported with by 
those to whom they were given as they might think proper. 
Even the apostles themselves possessed them only to a 
limited extent. When Paul was shipwrecked on the island 
called Melita, he gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them 
on the fire, and there came a viper out of the heat and 
fastened on his hand ; yet he shook off the beast into the 
fire, and felt no harm. Acts xxviii : 3, 5. Did Jesus say 
" They shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any dead- 
ly thing, it shall not hurt them ? " Surely, the ever-faithful 
Son of God remembered this promise to His humble, per- 
secuted disciple just then. But this was not all — Jesus 
further said : " They shall lay hands on the sick, and they 
shall recover." Hence he not only protected Paul's person 
from harm, but " it came to pass that the father of Publius 
lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux : to whom Paul en- 
tered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed 
him. So when, this was done, others also, which had dis- 
eases in the island, came, and were healed." Acts xxviii : 
8, 9. By this we learn that Paul possessed in an eminent 
degree the power to heal the sick, which is enumerated 
among the spiritual gifts ; nevertheless he informs us that 
he left Trophimns at Miletum sick. 2 Tim. iv : 20. Why 
would Paul leave his friend and traveling companion sick, 
having the power to heal him ? Surely, if he could have 
done so, he would have cured him. The reason why he 



606 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

did not, can only be found in the fact that he only pos- 
sessed such power when the glory of God would be exhib- 
ited by its exercise. 

But for what were these spiritual gifts bestowed upon 
the primitive disciples? After Jesus had given to the 
apostles their commission to preach the gospel to every 
creature, promising salvation to those who would believe 
and obey it, and assuring them that these signs (gifts of 
the Spirit) should follow them that believe, we learn that 
" they went forth and preached every- where, the Lord work- 
ing with them, and confirming tJie word with signs follow- 
ing." Mark xvi : 20. Then these signs were for the con- 
firmation of the Word at its first proclamation. Hence 
Paul said to the Romans : " I long to see you, that I may 
impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be 
established ; that is, that I may be comforted together with 
you by the mutual faith both of you and me," Rom. i : 
11, 12. 

In the infantile state of the church, when it was depend- 
ent upon oral instructions for all things pertaining to life 
and godliness, the Lord graciously attended, and confirmed 
the Word preached by these extraordinary demonstrations 
of the Spirit. Hence, says Paul to the Corinthians : "And 
I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency 
of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony 
of God ; for I determined not to know any thing among you, 
save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. And I was with you 
in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my 
speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of 
man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of 
power ; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of 
men, but in the power of God." 1 Cor. ii : 1-5. Persons 
sometimes say of a preacher, " He is so smart that he can 
make error appear as truth — he would make you believe a 



THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 607 

crow is white as a swan were he to make the effort." 
Though this is not very complimentary to the intelligence 
of the people, the devil sometimes seeks thus to catch 
away the seed sown, by making the people believe that it 
is the shrewdness of the preacher, and not the truth, which 
makes his positions look plausible. The apostle made no 
effort to fascinate and charm the Corinthians by his elo- 
quence, excellency of speech ; nor by his learning, enticing 
words of man's wisdom. As to these, he was with them in 
weakness. But that they might be established and their 
faith unshaken, his preaching was confirmed by signs fol- 
lowing, here called demonstration of the Spirit, and of 
power that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of 
men, but in the power of God. When Jesus ascended 
up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto 
men. How did he give these gifts, and what were they ? 
By the Spirit he prepared some men to be " apostles ; and 
some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors 
and teachers." And what were these for? " For the per- 
fecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the 
edifying of the body of Christ." And how long were these 
gifts to remain ? " Till we all come in the unity of the faith 
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 
man, [perfect Church] unto the measure of the stature of 
the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more chil- 
dren, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind 
of doctrine." Eph. iv : 11-14. Paul tells us "Whether 
there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there be 
tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it 
shall vanish away." 1 Cor. xiii : 8. These were among 
the spiritual gifts, and it is here expressly stated that they 
should have an end ; and we have clearly seen just how 
and when they did end. Having a perfect record of these 
signs given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there is no 



g g THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

necessity for them to be repeated now ; and to wish to see 
them, is but to confess our want of confidence in the Bible — 
virtually saying, " I know, God therein says they occurred, 
but I am not sure the record is true ; I would prefer to see 
them myself." " If the word spoken by angels was stead- 
fast, and every transgression and disobedience received a 
just recompense of reward, how shall we escape, if we 
neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be 
spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them 
that heard Him ; God, also, bearing them witness, both 
with signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the 
Holy Ghost, according to his own will ? " Heb. ii : 2-4. 
Kind reader, let us ponder well this soul-stirring question. 
This great salvation, first spoken by the Lord, was con- 
firmed by them that heard him ; God, also, bearing them 
witness with signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and 
gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His will ; and they are 
written, as were the signs of Jesus, that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing 
ye might have life through His name. Oh ! then, how shall 
we escape if we neglect it ? As surely as every transgres- 
sion and disobedience, under the law, received a just re- 
compense of reward, so surely will we be rewarded accord- 
ing to our works. 

The Operation of the Holy Spirit. 
That it is necessary that man be converted in order to 
the enjoyment of the favor of God is not a matter of con- 
troversy with any save Universalists ; and we are not quite 
sure we could do any good by stopping to debate the ques- 
tion with them just now. They say, they believe the Bible 
to be a revelation from God, and therefore true. It says, 
"These shall go away into everlasting punishment; but 
the righteous into life eternal." Matt. xxv:4& "The hour 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 609 

is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear 
His voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, 
unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, 
unto the resurrection of damnation." John v : 28, 29. 
" The rich man also died, and was buried ; and in hell he 
lifted up his eyes, being in torments." Luke xvi : 22, 23. 
And what more ? " The fearful, and unbelieving, and the 
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sor- 
cerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in 
the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." Rev. 
xxi : 8. These are enough for us ; and if they will not suf- 
fice for those who profess to believe the Bible, then they 
would not be persuaded, though one should arise from the 
dead. That all intelligent men and women, in a land of 
Bibles, must be converted or lost, we will assume as a set- 
tled fact. 

That the Spirit does operate in conversion, is admitted 
by all who are expected to be benefited by our labors ; hence, 
we offer no argument to prove that which no one denies. 
Though we have sometimes, nay, often, heard of a people 
who deny the operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion, 
we have never met a single man who so taught ; nor have 
we ever read any thing from the pen of any man who had 
so written. Lest, therefore, we waste our ammunition in 
" shelling the woods " we will wait for the appearance of the 
enemy, before we make war upon him. Nor do we propose 
any examination of what the Spirit can or can not do. The 
questions which concern us are, What does it do, and how 
does it do it ? 

We have seen, in another department of our work, that 
on the day of Pentecost God established upon the earth a 
system of government, variously styled, the kingdom of 
God, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God's dear 
Son, the Church of God, the temple of God, the house 



6lO THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

of God, the household of faith, the body of Christ, etc. 
Concerning this organization, we are now prepared to see, 

First, That those who established it were directly in- 
structed by the Holy Spirit. 

Second, That, from the time of its organization, it became 
the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit through all succeed- 
ing time ; and, 

Third, That it is the medium through which the Holy 
Spirit puts forth its power for the conversion and salva- 
tion of man. 

To an examination of these propositions, in their order, 
we solicit the attention of the reader for a time. 

First, then, that those who established it were directly 
instructed by the Holy Spirit. This has been so thoroughly 
examined already that it need not detain us long. Still it 
is important to remember that " they were all filled with 
the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, 
as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts ii : 4. Then 
their teaching was but the teaching of the Holy Spirit 
through them. Every announcement made, every con- 
dition imposed, every blessing promised, and every punish- 
ment threatened, was spoken by the Holy Spirit through 
men selected for the work, and was made binding on men 
here and ratified in heaven. 

Second, that it became the dwelling-place of the Holy 
Spirit through all succeeding time is apparent from sev- 
eral considerations : 

1. "The body without the Spirit is dead." Jas. ii : 26. 
"The body is the Church." Col. i : 18 and 24. Then if there 
was ever a time when the Spirit was not in the body of 
Christ or Church it was surely a dead body. 

2. When Paul said, " There is one body and one Spirit," 
it is next to certain that he meant to teach that there is 
one body, and one Spirit in this body. 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 6 1 I 

3. In speaking of it as a temple or building, and the 
disciples as living stones in it, the apostle says : " Know ye 
not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of 
God dwelleth in you." I Cor. iii : 16. 

4. Jesus said to the disciples before His death, "I will 
pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, 
that He may abide with you forever." John xiv: 16. " The 
Comforter is the Holy Ghost." Ver. 26. From these 
Scriptures it is apparent that when the Holy Spirit came, 
and the Church or body was organized by its directions, it 
took up its abode in it ; not for a season only, but as an 
abiding guest and Comforter forever ; and thus it is that 
the disciples are " Builded together, for an habitation of 
God through the Spirit." Eph. ii : 22. 

Third : We come now to. an examination of our third 
proposition, namely, that the Church, thus organized by 
the Spirit, is not only its dwelling-place, but is the medium 
through which it puts forth its power for the conversion 
and salvation of man. 

The kingdom or church of God, and the kingdom of 
Satan, are the great antagonistic governments or powers 
of earth. They are engaged in a perpetual war against each 
other ; and each is seeking to capture the subjects of the 
other. They do not discharge their prisoners on parole ; 
but each one taken is forthwith made a recruit in the ranks 
of the captors. Paul minutely describes the armor fur- 
nished the soldiers of the cross in this great struggle. 
After describing the character of the enemy, he says: 
" Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that 
ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having 
done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt 
about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of right- 
eousness ; and your feet shod with the preparation of the 
gospel of peace ; above all, taking the shield of faith where- 



6l2 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

with ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the 
wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword 
of the Spirit, which is the word of God." Eph. vi : 13-17. 
There are many valuable thoughts suggested by the dif- 
ferent parts of this armor, which we have not time to 
notice. We wish to call attention to the fact, that the dis- 
ciples are to don this armor and use it ; not lay it on the 
centre-table as a keepsake, but use it'. That this spiritual 
war is both offensive and defensive is suggested by the fact 
that there is both a sword and a shield belonging to the 
armor. This is for protection against the darts of the 
enemy, that is for making wounds upon him. He that 
enters the army taking only the shield, that he may pro- 
tect himself, while others fight the enemy, makes rather a 
worthless soldier. Soldiers of the cross are required to 
take the whole armor of God, that they may " fight a good 
fight," for their own salvation, and the salvation of others. 
The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit, and the disci- 
ples are to use it in order to rescue their fellow-man from 
the enemy, and enlist him as a soldier against him — that 
he may be delivered from the power of darkness and trans- 
lated into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Are we letting 
the sword of the Spirit rust in its scabbard ? "Ye are the 
salt of the earth ; if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith 
shall it be salted ? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but 
to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men." 
Matt, v: 13. 

The Holy Spirit, dwelling in the body, operates through its 
members with its teaching upon such material as comes within 
the range of its influence. The teaching of the Spirit, put 
forth through the members of the body, is both theoretic 
and practical. The gospel is the power of God unto salva- 
tion to every one that believeth ; and he has ordained that 
it shall be preached to all nations — every creature, that he 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 613 

may learn the theory by which God proposes to save him. 
But this is not all of it. There must be a practical exhibi- 
tion of the Christian religion in the life of the disciples ; 
hence Jesus said to them : " Let your light so shine before 
men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your 
Father which is in heaven." Matt, v: 16. That this be 
spiritual light, the good works must be those " which God 
hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Eph. 
ii : 10. Every thing necessary to a thorough exhibition of 
the Christian religion, both theoretically and practically, is 
comprehended in the Scriptures, " Given by inspiration of 
God," for they are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, 
for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of God 
may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good 
works." 2 Tim. iii : 16, 17. The man of God is designed 
to be perfect, and the Scriptures given by inspiration were 
designed to make him so. They not on\y famish him, but 
thoroughly furnish him, not only to some good works but to 
all good works. Does it not follow, then, that there is 
nothing left discretionary with man ? Nay, if there be any 
work to which the man of God is not thoroughly furnished 
by the Scriptures, does it not follow that it is not a good 
work ? "As His divine power hath given unto us all things 
that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowl- 
edge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue." 2 
Peter i : 3. 

But we have seen that the promised Comforter was to 
reprove the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. 
That this Comforter was the Holy Spirit, and that it did 
come to the disciples, and was received by them, we have 
already seen. That it did reprove, and is reproving, the 
world of sin, righteousness, and judgment is a fact so gen- 
erally admitted that we need not stop to offer proof of it. 
The controverted question is, How did it do it ? To this 



6 14 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

question we will give our attention for a time. Did the 
Spirit come from heaven to the world? What do we un- 
derstand the Saviour to mean by the term world in the 
passage under consideration ? Certainly, it will be con- 
ceded that He did not mean the material universe, but 
that He meant the wicked people who committed sin of 
which to be reproved, in contrast with the disciples. 
Then was the Holy Spirit given directly to the wicked, 
that it might enter their hearts and reprove them ? No ; 
it was promised to the disciples. Jesus said to them : " I 
will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Com- 
forter, that he may abide with you forever; even the Spirit 
of truth, whom the zuorld can not receive, because it seeth 
him not, neither knoweth him ; but ye know him, for he 
dwelleth with you and shall be in you." John xiv : 16, 17. 
Then, the Spirit was not only promised to the disciples to 
dwell with and be in them, but it is said, in great plain- 
ness, that the world, which was to be reproved by it, could 
not receive it. On the day of Pentecost the promised Spirit 
came, and through Peter used words calculated to convey 
to those who heard just such ideas as were necessary to 
be communicated to them to make them sensible of the 
sin of which they were to be reproved. Believing Jesus 
to be an impostor, they had crucified and slain Him ; 
but Peter used such arguments as convinced them that 
in this they were mistaken. At the close of his speech 
he said : " Therefore, let all the house of Israel know as- 
suredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye 
have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now, when they 
heard this, they were pricked in their heart." Acts ii : 
36, 37. This is all plain. The Spirit reproved them 
through Peter's words, which they understood and be- 
lieved, and thus operated sensibly upon them — cut them to 
the heart. When God created man, He gave him an or- 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 615 

ganization capable of receiving just such impressions as 
He designed should be made upon him. He placed within 
him a mind capable of appreciating communications from 
his Creator and his fellow-man ; and He gave him certain 
senses through which to receive such impressions as are 
necessary to the accomplishment of his mission on the earth. 
Hence, we conclude that, in order for man to receive in- 
structions from any source, they must be embodied in 
words adapted to his comprehension and directed to the 
mind through the avenues which God has opened to it. 
In keeping with this arrangement, we find that in every 
period of man's existence, when God wished to commu- 
nicate an idea to him, He embodied it in words adapted to 
his capacity, and gave it to him either in person or through 
some agent selected for that purpose. Even so, when the 
Spirit reproved man of sin, it is said : " Ye men of Israel, 
hear these words: Jesus, of Nazareth, a man approved of 
God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, 
which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye your- 
selves also know : him, being delivered by the determinate 
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by 
wicked hands have crucified and slain." Acts ii : 22, 23. 

When the angel of the Lord told John, in the Isle of 
Patmos, what to write to each of the seven Asiatic churches, 
each message closed by saying : " He that hath an ear, 
let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." 
Hence, the words which John wrote by inspiration of the 
Spirit were the words of the Spirit, and by hearing them 
we hear what the Spirit said to the churches. Then, it 
follows that when we hear the words of an inspired man 
we hear the words of the Spirit, and when we have the 
thoughts legitimately belonging to such words, we have 
the thoughts communicated by the Spirit. In this way 
even "now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter 



616 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to se- 
ducing spirits and doctrines of devils." I Tim. iv : i. The 
Spirit, then, does not speak in mysterious and incompre- 
hensible ways, but it speaks expressly — in words easy to be 
understood. " Holy men of God spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter i: 21. We have a faithful 
record of what they said ; hence, " they being dead, yet 
speaketh." Heb. xi : 4. Paul said : " Eye hath not seen, 
nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, 
the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit ; for the 
Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. * 
* * Which things also we speak, not in the words which 
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teach- 
eth ; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Cor. 
ii: 9-13. 

And again : " For this cause I, Paul, the prisoner of Je- 
sus Christ for you Gentiles, if ye have heard of the dispen- 
sation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward : 
how that by revelation he made known unto me the mys- 
tery (as I wrote afore in few words ; whereby, when ye 
read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of 
Christ), which in other ages was not made known unto the 
sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and 
prophets by tlie Spirit!' Eph. iii : 1-5. Here we learn that 
things which in other ages had been a mystery to other 
people were by the Spirit revealed and made known to 
Paul and other apostles and prophets, and that Paul had 
written them to his brethren, so that when they read they 
could understand his knowledge of what had previously 
been a profound mystery. "And what shall I say more ? 
for the time would fail me " to quote all the Scriptures 
which prove that the lessons taught by the prophets and 
apostles were nothing less than the teaching of the Holy 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 617 

Spirit." David said : " To-day, if ye will hear his voice, 
harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in 
the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers 
tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years 
long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a 
people that do err in their heart, and they have not known 
my ways." Ps. ix : 7-10. Paul quotes this language, say- 
ing : " Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye 
will hear his voice," etc. Heb. iii : 7-10. Why did the 
apostle thus quote the language of David as the language 
of the Holy Ghost ? Because " David, the son of Jesse, 
said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed 
of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, 
The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in 
my tongue." 2 Sam. xxiii : 1, 2. Hence it was, too, that 
Peter quotes David, saying : " The Holy Ghost by the 
mouth of David spake," etc. Acts i : 16. Thus we see 
why Paul and Peter quote the words of David as the words 
of the Holy Spirit spoken by him ; and, therefore, any effect 
produced upon the heart as properly growing out of such 
language can be nothing less than an effect produced by 
the Holy Spirit. 

Having found that the Holy Spirit has clothed its ideas 
in words adapted to the comprehension of man, we can see 
a beauty and fitness in the parable of the sower and the 
explanation of it by the Saviour. He says : " The seed is 
the word of God. Those by the way-side are they that 
hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out 
of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." 
The devil knows well that if he can keep the people away 
from the Word of God. or get it away from them after they 
have heard it, all are his. Hence, he makes every effort he 
can to keep it from them. Pie will bolt church doors 
against it ; call it all the ugly names he can think of to 
52 



6l8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

keep people from hearing it ; if, in spite of him, thSy hear 
it, he offers every gratification that the flesh can desire to 
choke it out. "They on the rock are they, which, when 
they hear, receive the word with joy ; and these have no 
root, which for awhile believe, and in time of temptation 
fall away. And that which fell among thorns, are they, 
which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with 
cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, and bring no 
fruit to perfection. But that on the good ground are they, 
which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, 
keep it and bring forth fruit with patience." Luke viii : 
11-15. As the farmer can not reap a crop without seed 
has been sown, neither can there be a spiritual crop with- 
out spiritual seed ; and as the Word of God is the spiritual 
seed, it follows that where the Word of God is not preached, 
or the seed in some way sown, there can be no spiritual 
crop. This is so very evident that we need not offer argu- 
ments to support it. " Faith cometh by hearing, and hear- 
ing by the word of God." Rom. x: 17. Where the Word 
of God is not, it can not be heard, and hence there can be 
no faith, and " he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Mark xvi : 16. Hence, no word of God, no faith — and no 
faith, no salvation for intelligent men and women in a land 
of Bibles. Before there was a written Word, " it pleased 
God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that 
believe." 1 Cor. i: 21. The press is now a very extensive 
sower of the Word of God ; but then men went every- 
where preaching the Word. Hence, Paul asks : " How 
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? 
and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall 
they preach except they be sent?" Rom. x: 14, 15. Be- 
fore the gospel was written so as to afford preachers an 
opportunity of learning it by study, God miraculously 
called, qualified, and sent men to preach ; but now, if they 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 619 

would know any thing, they had better observe Paul's 
charge to Timothy : " Give attendance to reading." 

That we may, if possible, more clearly see the medium 
through which the Spirit operates, we will notice another 
scripture or two. " The Lord said, My Spirit shall not 
always strive with man." Gen. vi : 3. How did the Spirit 
of the Lord anciently strive with the people ? " Yet many 
years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them 
by thy Spirit in thy prophets : yet would they not give 
ear." Neh. ix : 30. Thus we see that the Spirit strove 
with, bore with, and testified against, the people, but was 
located in and did its work through the prophets, and by 
resisting their words the people resisted the teaching of 
the Holy Spirit. The devoted Stephen said to his perse- 
cutors : " Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and 
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost : as your fathers 
did, so do ye." How did their fathers resist the Holy 
Ghost ? " Which of the prophets have not your fathers 
persecuted ?" Then, by persecuting the prophets they 
resisted the Holy Ghost. " When they heard these things 
they were cut to the heart" — reproved of sin — operated 
on by the Holy Spirit ; but did they receive the Spirit ? 
Surely not. " They gnashed on him with their teeth ; but 
he being full of the Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly into 
heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on 
the right hand of God, and said, Behold I see the heavens 
opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand 
of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped 
their ears, and ran upon him with one accord and cast him 
out of the city, and stoned him." Acts vii : 57, 58. By 
this narrative we see clearly that the Spirit was located in 
Stephen, and through his words operated on the people ; 
yet they did not receive the Spirit, but resisted it. The 
Holy Spirit was in Stephen, but the spirit of the wicked 



620 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

one was in the people. It is one thing, therefore, to be 
operated on by the Spirit, and quite another thing to re- 
ceive the Spirit. On the day, of Pentecost the Spirit oper- 
ated in the same way, but the result was very different. It 
was in Peter, and through his words cut the people to the 
heart. " Then they that gladly received his word were 
baptized : and the same day there were added unto them 
about three thousand souls." Acts ii : 41. In place of 
gladly receiving Stephen's words, they resisted the Holy 
Spirit and put Stephen to death. Persons operated on 
by the Spirit may receive or reject its teaching as they 
may elect. 

All bodies, or organizations, have spirits within them, 
and can not exist without them. Not only so, but every 
organization or body has its own peculiar spirit. The Free 
Mason, Odd Fellow, Sons of Temperance, and Good Tem- 
plar organizations, each has its own peculiar spirit. And 
it is a working, operative spirit, too, operating through the 
members with its teaching on such material as comes 
within the range of its influence. And when it makes any 
thing it makes material for its own body and nothing else. 
That is, the spirit of Masonry, if it makes any thing, makes 
Masons, and never makes an Odd Fellow or Son of Tem- 
perance. The spirit of Odd Fellowship makes Odd Fel- 
lows, but never makes Masons, or any thing else. Mor- 
mons, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Christians, 
all have spirits peculiar to their own respective organiza- 
tions or bodies. These spirits, too, are working spirits, 
operating through their members with their teaching on 
the people. When the spirit of Catholicism operates it 
always makes a Catholic, and never makes a Mormon, Bap- 
tist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or a Christian. When the 
Mormon spirit operates, it always makes, if any thing at 
all, a Mormon, and never makes a Catholic, Baptist, Pres- 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 621 

byterian, Methodist, or Christian. To this, all but Cath- 
olics and Mormons will agree. Shall we take another step ? 
When the Holy Spirit operates with its teaching, it always 
makes Christians, and never makes a Catholic, a Mormon, or 
any thing else. Will all agree to this ? " No," says an 
objector ; " I see what you are at, and you are mistaken. I 
will give you an instance where the Spirit made Methodists, 
Baptists, and Presbyterians. There was a protracted tinion 
meeting in our town (or neighborhood, as the case may be) in 
which these several denominations were engaged. The Spirit 
was profusely poured out, and the meeting was abundantly 
blessed to the conversion of scores of persons, some of 
whom joined each of the denominations mentioned." Very 
well. It yet remains to be shown that this was the work 
of the Holy Spirit. Let us see. Perhaps this meeting was 
gotten up by these parties, not to oppose the powers of 
darkness, or put to flight the armies of Satan ; but to put 
down what the preachers were pleased to call Campbellism. 
They told the people not to hear such stuff. They had 
bolted their doors against all who dared to say as Jesus 
did, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," or 
as did the Spirit, by Peter, " Repent, and be baptized, every 
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission 
of sins." But still the people would go to hear, and this 
union meeting was gotten up as an effort to create, if pos- 
sible, a deeper prejudice in the minds of the people to keep 
them from hearing. " It is but the teaching of the Bible, 
and as sure as the people continue to hear it they will 
believe it. Our peculiarities are all in danger, and we must 
unite to put them out of the way. This done, we can then 
fight and devour each other, as we did thirty years ago." 
Now, as the spirit of this meeting was hatred and malice 
toward those who taught and acted according to the 
Spirit's directions, and as Paul tells us, " The fruit of the 



622 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, faith, 
meekness, temperance," etc., (Gal. v : 22, 23), fruit so very 
unlike the fruit of this meeting, it is clear that the very 
main spring of the whole affair was not the Spirit of Christ, 
but the spirit of anti-Christ. 

But let us examine the teaching at this meeting, and see 
whether or not it resembles the teaching of the Spirit. 
The preachers say to sinners, " Ye wicked and uncircum- 
cised in heart, the Lord's arms of mercy are open wide to 
receive and bless you, but you will not come to Him that 
He may bless you." The horrors of hell and the joys of 
heaven are painted in glowing colors before the audience, 
until some conclude they will secure these, and avoid those ; 
and they at once put themselves under the instructions of 
the preachers, with hearts subdued to the will of God, as 
far as they know it. And how do they direct them? Do 
they say to them, as the Spirit by Peter said to those wish- 
ing to know how to be saved on the day of Pentecost, 
'•'Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins?" Nay, verily! 
Such a declaration would put out all the excitement as 
effectually as water puts out fire. What then ? " Come into 
the altar or to the mourner's bench." Did the Spirit so 
teach the Pentecostian inquirers ? Nay, did the Spirit ever 
teach a son of Adam thus, from the beginning of time until 
now ? Not a word like it. But the sinners, willing to do 
any thing to obtain the blessing, come to the altar as 
directed by the preacher (not the Holy Spirit). Then what 
follows ? The congregation must all engage in prayer to 
God for them ; and among the first petitions made in their 
behalf is something like the following: " O God, come 
now, we beseech thee, and pardon and bless these mourn- 
ers." First they told the people God was willing, but they 
were not willing ; now they are willing, but God is not 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 623 

Hence they pray, beg, and beseech God to do that which 
they had previously declared Him always ready and willing 
to do. Is this the teaching of the Holy Spirit ? It can not 
be. Surely God trifles not with His creatures in this way. 
But the preacher prays very earnestly to God, to baptize 
them (us, says he) " with the Holy Ghost and with fire, 
right now." And perhaps he has prayed for the same 
thing at every meeting he has attended, perhaps a dozen 
times at some of them. Did God anciently baptize the 
same persons with the Holy Ghost and fire day after day 
repeatedly ? When we hear such a petition, we involun- 
tarily think, if we do not say, Lord, forbid ! But the ex- 
citement in some is now sufficiently high, and they rise, 
shouting, jumping, falling over benches, or on the floor, 
until it has become necessary for the friends to interpose, 
and restrain them by force, to prevent them from being 
injured or killed. What is the matter now? Will the 
Holy Spirit kill the people in converting them ? Not so. 
If we believed it, the operation of the Holy Spirit, we 
would say, hands off, gentlemen, it is God's work. Fear 
not, he will do right. If He kills them, they ought to die. 
Others, who are not blessed with a temperament so highly 
excitable, are not so easily moved by excitement (which by 
the way, is the very pabulum upon which the whole meet- 
ing subsists) ; hence the preacher says to them, "you have 
got it. Get up and shout, and tell the people what the Lord 
has done for you." And it takes all the assurance the 
preachers and Spirit can all give to get them through. 
Others, who have a little higher intellectual development, 
have to get up and go home without " getting through " at 
all. What is the reason ? Did any of the Pentecostian 
applicants fail ? The preachers told them God was willing, 
and would bless them if they would come. They have come ; 
and they have honestly and faithfully done as they were 



624 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

directed, and yet they have been disappointed. What is 
the matter? Were they not as honest and as humble as 
they ever could be ? Had they not full confidence in the 
efficacy of the blood of Jesus ? If they had not, they would 
not have gone into the altar. Did they not, from the great 
deep of their hearts, desire pardon ? Were they any worse 
than those who get through, that it should cost them a 
harder struggle ? Then we again ask, why were they dis- 
appointed ? Not to be tedious, we must leave these unfor- 
tunate subjects to brood over, and account for their disap- 
pointment upon the ground that they are not of the elect, 
or by supposing that there is no reality in religion, and 
thus merge into the Stygian pool of infidelity, while we 
attend to those who were fortunate enough to "get 
through." 

They must each tell an " experience of grace," for which 
there is not a word of authority in the Bible. Persons un- 
der the instruction of the Spirit anciently were required 
to confess their faith in the Son of God, but these tell the 
workings of their own imaginations ; and, not to be tedious 
in our examination of the many absurdities detailed, they 
usually contained the following four main points : 

ist. They felt like, and therefore believed themselves 
the worst sinners living. 

2d. They felt like, and therefore believed that their day 
of grace had forever passed. 

3d. They felt like, and therefore believed that God could 
not be just and pardon persons so wicked as themselves. 

4th. They felt like, and therefore believed that God for 
Christ's sake had pardoned them. 

As these four points enter into almost every experience 
we have listened to, we will examine them briefly. 

ist. They never had killed any person or stolen any 
thing; others, having done both, were worse than they; 






THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 625 

therefore, when they believed themselves worse than all 
others, they believed a falsehood. 

2d. They were then telling an "experience of grace," 
claiming to have found a day of grace ; hence, when they 
believed their day of grace forever passed, they believed a 
falsehood. 

3d. They all believed God to be infinitely just, and were 
then saying that they believed He had pardoned them ; 
so, if in this they were not mistaken, when they believed 
God could not be just and pardon them, they believed a 
falsehood. 

Now, as their feelings had led them to believe three ad- 
mitted falsehoods out of but four propositions, ma^ we not at 
least suspect the truth of the fourth ? Paul told his breth- 
ren that they were chosen to salvation " through sanctifica- 
tion of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thess. ii : 13. 
Then, if these persons were not mistaken in thinking 
themselves pardoned, Paul's rule was reversed as to them, 
for they were not chosen in the belief of the truth, but in 
the belief of three falsehoods, as they themselves admit ; 
and as the fourth proposition consists in believing that 
God had pardoned them without a compliance upon their 
part with the conditions upon which He had suspended 
their pardon, we must be permitted to think that there is 
as much probability in the truth of either of the other 
propositions as in this one. The vote is taken, however, 
and they are received. 

But we are rather ahead of the proceedings — we must 
go back a little. Each one asks : " What church shall I 
join ?" The preachers are all present. No one will say : 
"Join my church" — that would be too selfish; but they 
say : " Go to the grove, and secretly pray to God to direct 
you by the Spirit ; then come back and join the church to 
which the Spirit, through your feelings, may incline you." 
53 



626 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

Very well ; all go and pray to the same God, and are guided 
by the same Spirit, yet when they return, one will join the 
Presbyterians, and he will have water sprinkled on him as 
baptism ; another, guided by the same Spirit, will join the 
Methodists, and have water poured on him as baptism; 
another, under the guidance of the same Spirit, will join 
the Baptists, and nothing will do him for baptism but im- 
mersion ; and though, when he "got religion" twelve 
months before, he may, under direction of the Spirit, have 
been immersed by one of the Methodist preachers in the 
present meeting, he must now have it administered by a 
Baptist minister. The Methodist preacher who immersed 
him a year before, though now fully competent to preach, 
pray, exhort, sing, and assist in his present conversion, is 
nevertheless incompetent to administer baptism, though it 
be "a mere non-essential" and his former baptism is there- 
fore invalid, though it may have been immersion. Paul 
says : " By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 
1 Cor. xii : 13. Now, as these were not all baptized into 
one body, but into several bodies, it is quite clear that they 
were not guided by the Spirit of which he spake. 

Now, kind reader, is this picture over-drawn ? Have 
you not seen all this and much more ? We most solemnly 
aver that we have seen all this and many other things at 
such meetings too absurd to be spoken of in an essay like 
this without a compromise of our self-respect. Then, in 
the fear of God, allow me to ask, Did the Holy Spirit orig- 
inate, preside over, or conduct the meeting ? 

There are a few thoughts connected with these revival 
meetings to which we respectfully invite the attention of 
those who believe that the Spirit operates directly, ab- 
stractly, or immediately on persons to effect their conver- 
sion. First : Why is it necessary that there be a meet- 
ing? Is it because the Spirit can not or will not operate 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 627 

on the people at their respective homes as well as when 
they are congregated ? Or is it not true that they are 
called together that the preacher may have an opportunity 
of calling their attention to their spiritual interests. If 
so, it must follow that the Spirit is expected to operate 
through the preacher by such preaching, praying, singing, 
and exhortation as he may be able to bring to bear upon 
them. 

Again : Why is it important that the best revivalists be 
secured to conduct the more successful meetings ? If the 
Spirit operates immediately on the people, we can not see 
any use for a preacher at all ; or, if one must be had, it 
would not matter whether he have ten talents or one. An 
immediate operation of the Spirit can not be a mediate 
operation, and hence the preacher could have nothing to 
do with it, and one preacher would do as well as another. 
From our stand-point, we can easily see why one preacher 
may be more successful in conducting a meeting than an- 
other, but we can not reconcile it with the doctrine of im- 
mediate spiritual influences. The Spirit is in the church 
and operates through its members with its teaching upon 
such material as comes within the range of its influence, 
and it is to bring the people where they may hear its teach- 
ing that the meeting is called in the first place. Then, as 
the Spirit operates not immediately but mediately, the 
stronger the medium the more potent the influence. The 
Word of God is the sword of the Spirit, and as earthly gov- 
ernments wield their swords through their soldiery, so God 
wields the sword of the Spirit through His soldiery ; and 
as an adroit fencer will use the instrument of death more 
successfully in carnal warfare, even so will skillful workmen 
more successfully wield the sword of the Spirit in fighting 
the battles of the Lord. God gives us bread by giving 
us soil, rain, and other means of producing grain of which 



(28 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

to make it, but the richer the soil and better the season 
the more abundant will be the crop. So of every thing 
we enjoy through means — the more potent the means 
the richer the blessing. 

But we are told that the devil operates on the people 
immediately. It is assumed that he has no written law or 
revealed will, nor does he make any verbal communica- 
tions to man ; hence he must either operate without words, 
arguments, or other visible means, or not operate at all. 
And if the Holy Spirit only operates on man mediately, 
and the devil immediately, then it follows, that the latter 
has more power than the former. We would respectfully 
suggest that the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit is not 
a question of power. We care not to examine whether the 
Spirit can or can not operate in this or that way. It is suf- 
ficient that we know how it does operate. Nor are we pre- 
pared to admit that the devil, even now, makes no verbal 
communications to men ; on the contrary, he makes very 
many both oral and written. It is true that there are no 
books bearing his name as author ; nor did he write imme- 
diately any book known to us. But the same may be said 
of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Neither of them wrote any 
part of the New Testament immediately, yet we accept it 
as the last will and testament of the one, and inspired by 
the other. We most firmly believe that four-fifths of the 
books extant, are doing efficient service in behalf of the 
devil. Does any one doubt it ? Then let him look at the 
Mohammedan and Mormon Bibles, leading multiplied 
thousands away from Christ, after Mohammed and Jo 
Smith. Look, too, at the writings of infidels of every 
grade and hue, whose avowed purpose is to make the peo- 
ple believe that the Word of God is a fable, and His Son 
an impostor. The time would fail us to mention even the 
genera, to say nothing of the species of the devil's literature , 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 629 

• 

and yet we are told that the devil makes no verbal com- 
munications to man at all ! Surely, even this is an exam- 
ple of such communications from his satanic majesty. We 
have seen that God has His government, and operates 
through His subjects, with His teaching, upon such mate- 
rial as comes within the range of its influence ; even so, 
the devil has his government, and operates through his 
subjects, with his teachings, upon such material as comes 
within the range of its influence. Jesus said: "He that 
is not with me is against me ; and he that gathereth not 
with me, scattereth abroad." Matt, xii : 30. Luke xi : 23. 
Therefore, all responsible persons who are not the disciples 
of the Lord are the children of the devil, and engaged in 
his service. " Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts 
of your father ye will do." John viii : 44. When he wished 
to operate on our progenitors in the garden of Eden, he 
talked to them ; and as there was no human being through 
whom he might address Adam and Eve, he made a medium 
of the serpent, the most shrewd of all beasts ; for which 
there would have been no necessity, had wicked men and 
women been numerous then as now. When he wished to 
torture Job he talked to God about him. When he tempted 
Christ he talked to Him, and offered Him inducements to 
serve him ; some of which are not unlike the inducements 
presented by him now. It is said in the explanation to the 
parable of the sower, that the devil catches away the word 
sown in the heart. Do we not see this verified almost 
every day ? Through his subjects, he calls it " Campbell- 
ism," and one of his subjects has recently written a book 
in which he calls it " Bald-faced infidelity," " water salva- 
tion," and many other ugly names, for no other purpose 
than to make it odious to the people, lest they believe it. 
Should they believe and obey the gospel, then he appeals 
to their ambition, by offering them places of honor in his 



63O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

government ; or to their avarice by offering them wealth ; 
or to their appetites, passions, or fleshly lusts, by offering 
them any and every gratification which their carnal natures 
can desire. Surely his resources are ample without resort 
to immediate communications upon any person, or class of 
persons. The Word and service of God are our only sure 
means of defense against him and his subjects. "Know 
ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, 
his servants ye are to whom ye obey." Rom. vi : 16. 

If God has given us a full and perfect revelation of His 
mind and will concerning the redemption, conversion, sal- 
vation, government, spiritual growth, and final happiness 
of man in His Word, what need have we for influences of, 
or communications from, the Spirit without the Word ? We 
can not conceive of an impression necessary to be made 
upon the heart of man which the Word of the Lord is not 
capable of making. If we wish to be enlightened, " The 
commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." 
Ps. xix : 8. If we wish to be made wise unto salvation, 
" The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the 
simple." Ps. xix : 7. Paul told Timothy that " From a 
child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able 
to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in 
Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. iii 115. If we wish our souls con- 
verted to God, " The law of the Lord is perfect, converting 
the soul." Ps. xix : 7. He that is dead in trespasses and 
in sins may be quickened by the gospel : " Thy word has 
quickened me." Ps. cxix : 50. " I will never forget thy 
precepts ; for with them thou hast quickened me." Ibid, 
93. If any one wishes to be spiritually begotten, Paul 
says : " In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the 
gospel." 1 Cor. iv : 15. Indeed, the Corinthians were 
saved by the gospel, if they were saved at all, Paul says : 
" Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 63 1 

I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and 
wherein ye stand ; by which also ye are saved." i Cor. 
xv : 1, 2. " O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom 
and knowledge of God !" What can we desire to perfect 
the scheme of salvation to which we are not thoroughly 
furnished in the gospel ? 

We can see no use of sending the gospel to the heathen 
if the doctrine of abstract spiritual influences be true. If 
God converts sinners here where Bibles are plenty, without 
the Word, He will certainly be as kind to the heathen and 
convert them without the Word where they have no chance 
to hear it. If we believed this doctrine, we would not con- 
tribute one dollar to send Bibles or missionaries to them, 
for God will as surely convert them without the Word as 
He will any one here. If you tell us you do not want in- 
fluences of the Spirit without the Word, but an accom- 
panying influence with the Word, then is this not.an attack 
upon the sufficiency and truth of the Word ? It seems to 
virtually say : " I will not believe and obey the Lord in 
full assurance of faith in His Word until there is the ac- 
companying influence of the Spirit through my own feel- 
ings confirming its truth." If the Spirit makes impres- 
sions through our feelings not conveyed by words, we 
would like to have the rule of interpretation. How shall 
we decide whether it confirms or contradicts the Word ? 
If the message be that God has pardoned our sins, how 
shall we determine that it is not a message of condemna- 
tion ? We can not see how communications from a dumb 
spirit can be reliable. It occurs to us that we would about 
as soon undertake to translate the tappings of table-legs 
into good English as any other kind of communications 
not made through words. 

Again : Paul said : " Faith cometh by hearing, and hear- 
ing by the word of God." Rom x: 17. Then, faith that 



63 



THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 



comes by an abstract operation of the Spirit can not be 
the kind of faith of which Paul wrote. If he had been 
taught in the theological schools of modern times he 
would have said : " Faith cometh by feelings, and feelings 
by the Holy Spirit." If God gives man faith and converts 
him to Christianity by an abstract operation of the Spirit, 
we can not see why He will not give him all information 
necessary for his present and eternal happiness in the 
same way. Certainly, we can as readily conceive of sanc- 
tification by the Spirit without the Word as of justifica- 
tion by the Spirit without the Word. Hence, the Bible is 
a dead book, if not " a dead letter." A judge of the circuit 
court, whose name is quite familiar in this country, was 
celebrated for his ignorance of every thing but the law. 
On one occasion the connection of Scripture containing 
the "Lord's prayer" was read in his hearing, whereupon 
"his honor" remarked, in all sober earnestness, "There is 
some right good reading in that book." So, we suppose, 
the Bible may be respected for its antiquity and the " good 
reading" it contains; but as a way-bill from earth to heaven 
it is worth nothing if the feelings and speculations of men 
are allowed to supersede it. It was a useless application 
of the blood of Jesus when the new covenant was dedi- 
cated with it. If there are new revelations being con- 
stantly made by the Spirit, they become the last will of the 
Saviour, and as the last will abrogates all former wills, 
these abstract revelations must supersede the one dedi- 
cated by the blood of Jesus ; and if these impressions are 
not new revelations, but simply the same that are in the 
Word, made known without the Word, then they are 
worthless, nay, mischievous, for it were much better to 
have them in the Word where they may be understood. 

Finally, this doctrine opens the door to every species 
of imposition as wide as the speculations of men may de- 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 633 

sire it. We can not conceive of a doctrine so odious that 
it may not be confirmed by the same kind of testimony. 
The feelings of the Roman Catholic tell him that the priest 
can pardon his sins for money, and sell him indulgences 
to commit others. Surely, he believes it real pardon or he 
would not give his money for it. The feelings of the 
Moslem tell him that Mohammed was a prophet equal to 
Jesus of Nazareth, and that he conversed with God and 
received the Koran from Him in person as Moses did the 
law at Sinai. The feelings of Brigham Young tell him 
that Jo Smith was the prophet of God and that the Book 
of Mormon, and not the Word of the Lord, is the rule of 
faith and practice ; and can we object to what the Spirit 
tells him through his feelings, and at the same time offer 
him the same kind of testimony as evidence of our accept- 
ance with God ? We know not how any man, who admits 
the doctrine of abstract spiritual influences, can object to 
the faith of the Moslem, the Mormon, the Catholic, the 
spirit-rapper, or any one else who believes that the Holy 
Spirit, or any other spirit, communicated to him that upon 
which his faith is predicated, unless they can discredit the 
spirit which is said to have made the communication to 
him. Whenever they claim, as generally they do, that the 
Holy Spirit was the source of the communication, further 
objection can not be made by those who are committed to 
that kind of testimony. 

Before dismissing the subject, it may be well to call the 
attention of the reader to a few things which have been 
improperly blended with the ordinary influence of the 
Spirit in conversion, at least by some. The cases of con- 
version recorded in the Acts, all occurred in the days of 
miracles, and there were miracles connected with most of 
them. We have taken some pains to disconnect ordinary 
from extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit ; we need 



634 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

only here remind the reader that, however prominent a 
miracle may appear in the record of any case of conver- 
sion, as we do not live in the days of miracles, he must 
not expect the miracle to be reproduced in him. 

Again : the influence of circumstances, whether accidental 
or providential, are not the work of the Spirit in conver- 
sion. A merely accidental circumstance may take a man 
within range of the Spirit's teaching ; e. g. a young man 
goes to meeting to see a young lady — to see some friend — 
simply to be in company, or transact some business ; the 
gospel is preached, he becomes interested, and is finally 
converted. The accidental circumstance, whatever it may 
have been, which induced him to go to preaching, was not 
the influence of the Spirit, for this began when he came in 
contact with the teaching of the Spirit, through the preach- 
ing and other services at the meeting. The Scriptures 
furnish numerous examples illustrative of this fact. Lydia's 
occupation as a vender of purple, took her from Thyatira 
to Philippi, where Paul preached the gospel to her, by 
which God opened her heart, enlightened her mind, and 
she was converted ; but the influence of the Spirit upon 
her heart, began not until Paul's preaching saluted her 
ears. 

Again : The Jailer's occupation, as keeper of the prison 
in the city of Philippi, caused him to hear the Word of the 
Lord preached by Paul and Silas, by which he was con- 
verted, but he had not a spiritual idea until they spoke 
to him. Even after the miracles had ceased, he would 
have committed suicide, had they not prevented him. Had 
some one else been keeper of the prison, such one, and not 
he, might have been the beneficiary of the preaching. 

A providential circumstance may prepare a man to 
favorably receive the Spirit's teaching ; e. g. the death of a 
friend, or near relative, or physical suffering. When death 



THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 635 

fastens upon the vitals of a lovely child, brother, sister, or 
parent, with whom our affections are borne away to the 
realm of spirits ; or when our physical powers are ex- 
hausted by the blighting influence of disease and trouble, 
then it is, that we realize the insufficiency of human aid, 
and the instability of all earthly things. Our dependence 
upon God is brought home to us, and thus the heart is 
prepared for a favorable consideration of spiritual instruc- 
tion ; but not a ray of spiritual light can we derive from 
such afflictions. We are simply prepared to consider what 
light we previously had, and to receive additional instruc- 
tion if it is presented to us. We are not prepared to regard 
the mellowing influence of such afflictions as the work of 
the Holy Spirit in conversion ; nor are they even within 
the line of special providences, for they are the common lot 
of all men — the result of general providence or natural law. 
Nor would we be understood to deny the doctrine of special 
providence. Nay, we not only admit, but believe it ; but 
it is for God's children, and not to convert sinners. Paul 
says : " We trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of 
all men, but specially of those that believe!' I Tim. iv : 10. 
God has a general providence, of which all are the recipi- 
ents, but He specially provides for them that put their trust 
in Him, according to His Word. Hence, " We know that 
all things work together for good to them that love God, to 
them who are the called, according to his purpose." Rom. 
viii : 28. " The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, 
and his ears are open. unto their prayers ; but the face of the 
Lord is against them that do evil." i Pet. iii : 12. But we 
have no disposition to enter upon a discussion of this sub- 
ject here. It is important to a proper understanding of 
the Holy Spirit's work in conversion, that we keep it dis- 
entangled from every thing foreign to it. If we can do this, 
and then quit hunting for difficulties and mysteries, we will 



636 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

not find many. * The truths of God often sparkle as gems 
upon the surface of His Word, and are unobserved by those 
who are always digging tunnels, but never examine the 
virgin soil in its native simplicity. 

The Reception of the Holy Spirit. 
Having seen that the Spirit dwells in the body or 
Church — that the disciples are builded together for a habi- 
tation of God through the Spirit, and that the church is 
the medium through which the Spirit's power is exerted 
for the conversion and salvation of man, we come now to 
consider the relationship it sustains to each member of the 
body. Before leaving the disciples, Jesus said to them: 
" I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another 
Comforter, that he may abide with you forever ; even the 
Spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive, because it 
secth him not, neither knoweth him ; but ye know him, 
for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John xiv : 
16, 17. There are several very important matters in this 
quotation, for which we will have use as we proceed ; but 
at present, we are here to see that the Holy Spirit was 
promised as an abiding guest and comforter to the disci- 
ples, and as such it was to dwell with, and be in them for- 
ever. That this was not a figurative, but a literal in-dwell- 
ing of the Holy Spirit in the disciples is plain, from the 
fact that when the Spirit came, as promised, " they were 
all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with 
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 
ii : 4. It will scarcely be said that the disciples were only 
figuratively filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pente- 
cost. Nay, it was literally in them, as the Saviour promised 
them it should be. Then, are we to believe that it was 
literally in them as an inspiring monitor, but as a comfor- 
ter only figuratively ? If not, and it was literally in the 



THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 637 

apostles to inspire them, we can see no reason why it 
should not be as literally in them as a comforter. And if 
it dwelt literally in them as a comforter, and as such was 
to abide with them forever, we conclude that it must dwell 
in the disciples now as literally as it was in them. 

And here we must not forget that the Spirit was given 
to man by measure ; and we have seen some of these meas- 
ures fill their mission and pass away. It was to guide the 
apostles into all truth, and bring to their remembrance 
every thing said to them by the Saviour. It has done this, 
and as we have a perfect record of what they said and did 
when inspired by it, we have no use for it now as an in- 
spiring monitor ; but as a comforter it abideth ^ever. But 
we may be told, that this promise was made to the apostles 
only, and was to them fulfilled. And as they were inspired 
by its presence, the absence of such inspiration proves the 
absence of the Spirit in all who are not so inspired. 

A careful examination of the Scriptures will show that, 
while there was no promise that the inspiration should 
remain, as a comforter it was to abide with the disciples 
forever. As such, it was to dwell with, and be in them. 
As an inspiring monitor it did not abide forever. Nay, 
even the apostles, during their lives, were not always under 
its inspiration. Paul sometimes spake as a man, at other 
times he tJwngJit lie had the Spirit of God, (See I Cor. vii : 
40.) How could he so speak if he knew himself to be at all 
times under the influence of inspiration. When it was 
necessary for something to be revealed or confirmed by the 
Spirit, it took possession of some spiritual man or men, 
through whom the work was accomplished. Had Peter 
been all the time under the influence of inspiration, it 
would not have taken a special miracle to teach him that 
he might go to the house of Cornelius with the gospel to 
the Gentiles. This case clearly shows that the gospel was 



6$8 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

progressively developed to the apostles, and that they did 
not know all its provisions, when first baptized with the 
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. " While Peter thought 
on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men 
seek thee, arise, therefore, and get thee down, and go with 
them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them." Acts x : 
19, 20. Then he knew something he never knew before. 
And when the messengers told him for what they had 
come, he knew something more. And when Cornelius 
rehearsed the things seen and heard by him " Then Peter 
opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God 
is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation, he that 
feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted with 
him." Acts x : 34, 35. These important lessons, the other 
apostles, though inspired, did not know yet. But Peter 
rehearsed the whole matter to them from the beginning, 
and " when they heard these things, they held their peace, 
and glorified God, saying : Then hath God also to the 
Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts xi : 18. 

Here, for the first time, these inspired men knew that 
the Gentiles were fellow-heirs with the Jews in the privi- 
leges of the gospel. But as a comforter, was it designed 
for the apostles alone ? If so, why did Jesus promise that 
it should abide with them forever. They could not live 
here forever ; nor can we conclude that Jesus intended to 
promise them the Holy Spirit as a comforter forever, mean- 
ing that it should go with them into the future state ; for 
He assures them that t/iere they should again be with Him. 
" I go," said He, " to prepare a place for you ; and if I go 
and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive 
you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." 
John xiv : 2, 3. While clothed with humanity, Jesus was 
not omnipresent, and hence, could only be with and com- 
fort His disciples in a single place at one time. 



THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 639 

As to the apostles alone, this would not have made an- 
other comforter necessary, for He could have kept them 
with Him ; but when the time came for them to go into all 
the world and proclaim the gospel to every creature He 
could not, as son of man, be in Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, 
Philippi, Samaria, and other places at the same time ; hence 
it was expedient, in this respect, as well as others, that He 
should go away and send another Comforter, even the Holy 
Spirit, who could dwell with, and be in every disciple, any 
and every where until He should come again. There is a 
remarkable similarity in the style of the Saviour when He 
promised the Comforter to the disciples, and that of Paul 
in his letter to his brethren at Rome. He says : "But ye 
are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the 
Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the 
Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, 
the body is dead because of sin ; but the Spirit is life because 
of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up 
Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ 
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his 
Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. viii : 9-1 1. That this 
passage is applicable to Christians now is admitted by all ; 
how strikingly similar the phraseology to that used by the 
Saviour. He says : " He dwelleth with you and shall be in 
you!' Paul says : " If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in 
you." " If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the 
dead dwell in you!' " Shall also quicken your mortal bodies 
by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." What can this lan- 
guage mean ? We can not say that God will quicken our 
mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth figuratively in 
us ; and to say that He will quicken our mortal bodies by 
His Spirit that dwelleth metonymically in us would be no 
better. Nor will it do to say that God will quicken our 
mortal bodies by His disposition that dwelleth in us. To 



64O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

our mind, the passage admits of one interpretation, and 
only one ; namely, that the Spirit of God — the Holy Spirit — 
dwells literally and really in every Christian, and by it God 
will re-animate his body in the great day. With this agrees 
the teaching of Paul, when he wrote to the disciples at 
Corinth. He says : " What ! know ye not that your body 
is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you ?" 1 Cor. 
vi : 19. He here manifests astonishment that they should 
not ever keep this thought before them. And again : 
" Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the 
Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" 1 Cor. iii : 16. Had 
Paul been seeking to impress the disciples at Rome and 
Corinth, with the fact that the Spirit did really dwell in 
each of them, we know not how he could have selected a 
set of words better calculated- to convey the thought than 
those he employed in the passages quoted. 

Thus far we have not approached our position by any 
process of reasoning, but by positive declarations of Holy 
Writ. " The Spirit dwelleth in you " has met us every- 
where. Upon such scriptures there is not much room to 
reason, and here we could well afford to rest this position. 
But we think we can arrive at the same thought by a 
process of reasoning altogether satisfactory, even in the 
absence of direct testimony. Paul more than once likens 
the church to the human body, an example of which may 
be found, 1 Cor. xii : 12-27, to which the reader is referred ; 
we can only transcribe a sentence or two. Addressing the 
disciples, he says : " Now ye are the body of Christ, and 
members in particular." The blood freighted with the 
pabulum of life must freely circulate in all the members 
of the body, great and small ; and should such circulation 
cease in any member, death and disintegration of such 
member must inevitably follow, and unless it is separated 
from the body all must perish. Even so, "the body with- 



THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 64 1 

out the spirit is dead." Jas. ii : 26. If the Sprrit ceases to 
dwell in and vitalize every member of the church or spir- 
itual body, spiritual death to such a member is inevitable ; 
and if the circulation can not be restored, painful as the 
operation may be, the amputating knife must be used, for 
" when one member suffers all the members suffer with it." 
As it is " better for one member to perish than for the 
whole body to be cast into hell" (Matt, v: 29, 30), sacred 
as the relationship may have been, a separation must take 
place. Are we not here taught that the presence of the 
Spirit in the Christian is indispensable to the maintenance 
of Spiritual life ? 

Again : Jesus illustrated the relationship his disciples 
sustained to Him by a vine and its branches. See John 
xv : 1-7. Said He : " I am the vine, ye are the branches. 
He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth 
forth much fruit." As every branch must maintain its 
connection with the vine, so that the sap may circulate 
from vine to branch and keep it alive, even so must every 
member of the church or body of Christ maintain his con- 
nection with the body, so that the Spirit circulate in and 
keep him alive, lest " he be cast forth as a branch and is 
withered ; and men gather such, and cast them into the fire, 
and they are burned." So the Lord taught, and so we 
believe. 

But we are sometimes told that the Spirit dwells in us 
simply by its teaching received through the inspired Word ; 
hence all that is meant by it is that we are well instructed 
by the Spirit. When Paul told the Romans that God 
would quicken their mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelt 
in them, did he only mean to teach that God would reani- 
mate their sleeping dust by the instructions they had 
received from the Spirit ? If this be all, then we see not 
why the world can not receive it. An infidel may be as 
54 



642 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

wise in the' Scriptures as the most devoted disciple. It 
took a man mighty in the Scriptures to meet Mr. Owen in 
debate upon the authenticity of the Bible, and yet it will 
scarcely be contended that the Holy Spirit dwelt in his 
infidel heart. Every man who is adopted into the family 
of God must be taught by the Spirit before he is adopted ; 
but the Spirit is given to him because he is a son, and not 
to prepare him for adoption or make him a son. If the 
reception of the Word of truth be all that is meant by the 
reception of the Spirit, then Paul's rule is reversed, and 
every man receives the Spirit, not because he is a son, but 
that he may become one. Yea, Jesus was mistaken when 
He said: "The world can not receive it," because they 
must receive its instruction while of the world, and before 
entering the church, kingdom, or body, as certainly as 
hearing precedes faith and faith precedes obedience. 

Paul said to the Ephesians that they were sealed with 
the Holy Spirit after they heard and believed the gospel 
and trusted in Christ. " In whom ye also trusted after 
that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salva- 
tion : in whom also, after that ye believed ye were sealed 
with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of 
our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased pos- 
session." Eph. i : 13, 14. Then it follows, most certainly, 
that if we are now sealed with the Holy Spirit, as these 
Ephesians were, it takes place after, and is something more 
than liearing, believing, and receiving the Word. Their 
sealing was to them an earnest of their inheritance ; that 
is, a pledge of God's faithfulness in giving them the prom- 
ised inheritance ; hence, he admonishes them to faithful- 
ness on their part, that they "grieve not the Holy Spirit 
of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemp- 
tion." Eph. iv : 30. The same apostle writes to the Co- 
rinthians thus : " For all the promises of God in him are 



THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 643 

yea, and in him amen, unto the glory of God by us. Now, 
he which establisheth us with you in Christ and hath 
anointed us, is God ; who hath also sealed us, and given 
the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 2 Cor. i : 20-22. 
God established them in Christ by giving them the Holy 
Spirit as an earnest or pledge of the fact that His prom- 
ises were yea and amen in Christ, hence they were sealed 
with the Spirit. "Now, he that hath wrought us for the 
self-same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the 
earnest of the Spirit." 2 Cor. v : 5. That God gave these 
Corinthians the Holy Spirit as an earnest- of the promised 
inheritance is clear ; and when we associate these quota- 
tions with the language quoted from Eph. i: 13, it clearly 
shows that it was given after they were instructed in and 
believed the gospel, and hence was something more than the 
information thus received by them. From this conclusion 
we can perceive of but one possible way of escape — 
namely, that the measure of the Spirit by which the Ephe- 
sians and Corinthians were sealed was the extraordinary 
measure by which spiritual gifts were imparted, and not 
the ordinary measure following adoption into God's family. 
But it is the business of him who so affirms to furnish the 
proof of such affirmation ; and he would do well, in the 
mean time, to see that he does not explain away all the 
Bible in special applications of it, leaving nothing applica- 
ble to us at all. 

It may not be amiss to remark here, that the words in 
which a truth or thought is expressed are not the thought 
itself; nor is the thought or truth suggested by a person 
or thing the person or thing which suggested it. Hence, 
the words in which a spiritual idea is suggested are not the 
idea ; nor is the idea suggested by the Spirit the Spirit 
itself. A school-boy may have the words of an author 
committed to memory most perfectly, and yet not have the 



644 THE G0SPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

thought which the author designed to convey by the words, 
nevertheless the thought was in the words. Even so, he 
may get the thoughts of an author without drinking in or 
imbibing the spirit of the author who suggested the 
thought, nevertheless, the spirit was in the thought. 
Hence it is possible for us to comprehend a thought or 
truth suggested by the Holy Spirit, and yet fail to receive 
the Spirit which inspired the thought. You will say these 
are nice distinctions ; we admit it; but they are distinc- 
tions nevertheless, and he who fails to make them, may 
never fully understand the subject of the Holy Spirit. 

But How do Persons Receive the Holy Spirit? 

Suppose we acknowledge ourselves incapable of answer- 
ing the question at all ; what then ? Does it follow that 
we must repudiate a plainly taught fact, because we can 
not comprehend and explain the philosophy of it? For 
just such a crime Zacharias was made dumb and not able 
to speak, until the fulfillment of the words which he refused 
to believe, because he could not see how he and Elizabeth 
were to be blessed with a child when both were well 
stricken in years. When God speaks, the man of faith 
believes, whether he can or can not explain the philosophy 
of what He says. Hence, we are prepared to believe that 
the Holy Spirit dwells in God's people, whether we can or 
can not explain the manner of its reception, because He 
says, He will quicken our mortal bodies by His Spirit which 
dwelleth in us. But we would not have the reader suppose 
the Bible a blank, even on this subject. Paul says : "The 
love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost 
which is given unto us." Rom. v : 5. By this we learn 
that the Holy Spirit is given to the disciples. But how is ' 
it given ? This is the troublesome question. Well, it is 
either given mediately or immediately — through means, or 



THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 645 

without means. Jesus once said : " If ye then, being evil, 
know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much 
more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to 
them that ask him?" Luke xi : 13. Here we are taught 
that the Father gives the Spirit to such of His children as 
ask Him for it ; but we are not told how He gives it to them. 
He gives us bread, and taught His disciples to pray for it, 
yet He gives it through means and not otherwise ; hence 
we may find that the Father has provided a system of 
means by which to convey the Holy Spirit to His children. 
" This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by 
the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ? " Gal. iii : 
2. Two thoughts are here implied : 

First, that the Galatians did not receive the Spirit by the 
works of the law. 

Second, That they did receive it by the hearing of faith. 

This question, then, is pertinent to our inquiry. We 
wish to know how the Spirit is received, and it is here 
assumed to have been received by the hearing of faith. But 
this is a queer sentence ; what can it mean ? Does hearing 
belong to faith ? No ; faith comes by hearing ; hence hear- 
ing must precede faith ; indeed, hearing may be where there 
is no faith. Then the apostles could not have meant by 
faith that confidence only with which we receive testi- 
mony. He must mean something more than that. In this 
chapter, as in many other places, he is evidently contrast- 
ing the Mosaic Law and its service with the gospel and its 
service ; and the word faith, in the verse quoted, is the 
synonym of gospel, and comprehends the whole plan of 
salvation presented in the gospel. If we comprehend the 
passage, we must notice the word hearing, for it must 
mean something more than the reception of sound. In the 
New Testament compiled by A. Campbell, from the works 
of Doctors George Campbell, Macknight and Doddridge, the 



646 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

passage is rendered, " The obedience of faith." We might 
quote many passages from the common version, where the 
word hear implies obedience, but a single example must 
suffice : "And it shall come to pass, that every soul which 
will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among 
the people." Acts iii : 23. Certainly the word hear must 
be understood to mean obedience to the commands of 
Jesus. Collating these items, the account stands thus : 
The Galatians received the Spirit by obedience to the gospel, 
and hence, obedience to the gospel is the Father's ap- 
pointed means of imparting the Holy Spirit to His children. 
Thus we see why it is that the world can not receive the 
Spirit ; they do not obey the gospel that they may receive 
it. We have seen that it is given by the Father to His 
children ; hence Paul said to them : " Because ye are sons, 
God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, 
crying, Abba Father." The children obey the Father ; 
hence as the gospel is the law by which He governs His 
children, and as obedience to it is the medium through 
which He gives them the Spirit, by obeying the gospel the 
children receive the Spirit. 

We have seen that there are two great opposing king- 
doms, namely : " The kingdom of God," and the " kingdom 
of darkness." The subjects of that are called the children 
or " Sons of God." 1 John iii : 1. The subjects of this 
are called, "the world," and Jesus says they can not receive 
the Spirit. Nor is it at all strange that they can not 
receive the Holy Spirit while citizens of the kingdom of 
darkness, laboring for and serving their father, the devil. 
If we would receive the Spirit of God we must become 
citizens of His government — members of His family. 
Then, and not until then, may we receive the Spirit of the 
family which entitles us to the privilege of calling God our 
Father. The men of the world have not the Spirit of God, 



THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. &47 

and have not the right to call Him their Father. Jesus 
said to such : " Ye are of your father the devil, and the 
lusts of your father ye will do." John viii : 44. The 
church is God's spiritual family, into which we enter as 
"babes in Christ." 1 Cor. iii : 1. And we are admonished, 
"as new-born babes, to desire the sincere milk of the word, 
that we may grow thereby." 1 Pet. ii : 2. Reading and 
feeding upon this spiritual food, the children of God are 
"filled with the Spirit" — not because the Word is the 
Spirit, for it is not — but because the Spirit is ever present 
in the inspired Word, and the service appointed therein is 
God's ordained means of giving them the Spirit. Hence, 
says Paul : " Let the word of God dwell in you richly, in 
all wisdom." Col. iii : 16. By so living we may grow up 
to the stature of men and women, full grown in Christ 
Jesus, the Lord, "till we all come in the unity of the faith 
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of 
Christ." Eph. iv: 13. If we take a child of Indian parent- 
age and adopt it into a family of civilization and refine- 
ment, it ceases to imbibe the spirit of the family from 
which it is adopted. It henceforth manifests a different 
disposition and speaks a different language. Its manners, 
habits, occupation, every thing save its personality under- 
goes a corresponding change. So, when a person is taken 
from "the world" and adopted into the family of God, he 
or she ceases to imbibe the spirit of the world, and hence 
to "conform to the world," and imbibes, "drinks into" that 
measure of the Spirit which the Father promised to His 
children by living in the Father's family, receiving His 
instruction, and being governed by His laws. 

Every time the faithful child obeys a command of the 
Father, he drinks into or imbibes a measure of the Spirit 
connected with that service. It matters not whether it 



648 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

were the service of the Lord's day, worship in the family, 
visiting the sick, relief of the poor, or any other service 
required by the Father of His children, He has connected 
Himself through the Spirit with His service, and he who 
faithfully serves Him receives the Holy Spirit as an earnest 
of the promised inheritance. Hence, "he that keepeth 
his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And 
hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which 
he has given us." 1 John iii : 24. And again : " If we 
love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is per- 
fected in us. Hereby we know that we dwell in him, and 
he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." Ibid, iv : 
12, 13. The devoted disciple goes to the house of worship 
on the Lord's day, and there is greeted heartily by his 
brethren and sisters in the Lord, and he feels the cords of 
love strengthen as he takes them by the hand. He joins 
with them in singing psalms, and hymns, and spiritual 
songs ; and as he makes melody in his heart to the Lord, 
his thoughts soar away to a place where he hopes to join 
with the redeemed in singing the "new song before the 
throne" in sweeter strains than mortal tongues can make. 
A lesson of instruction is read from the Word of the Lord 
" whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious 
promises ; that by these we might be partakers of the 
divine nature." 2 Pet. i: 4. Are we made partakers of 
the divine nature by the piecious promises of the Lord? 
Then, what has He promised ? Nay, what has He not 
promised us ? Eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither 
has it entered into the heart of man to conceive the things 
which God has in reservation for them that love Him ; and 
though God has revealed them by His Spirit, language is 
beggared when called upon to furnish drapery in which to 
present them. He has promised that He will never leave 
nor forsake His children ; that He will comfort and sup- 






THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. C 49 

port them while crossing the deep, rolling river ; that He 
will quicken their mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth 
in them, and give them bodies fashioned like unto the glo- 
rious body of His Son ; that their homes shall be in the city 
of God, where God and angels shall be their associates; 
that they shall have right to the tree of life, and drink of the 
pure river of life that flows from beneath the throne ; that 
they shall bask in the sunny smiles of God's eternal love 
forever and ever. Oh, great, exceeduig great and precious 
promises ! Who can contemplate them without partak- 
ing of the divine nature ; nay, without drinking copious 
draughts of the Holy Spirit that is ever present with 
them ? 

While the disciple eats of the bread and drinks of the 
wine which symbolize the broken body and shed blood 
of a crucified Saviour, who died that he might live, his 
memory fastens by faith upon the scenes of Calvary, and 
his heart swells with gratitude and is stirred with deepest 
emotion as he feels the love of God shed abroad in his 
heart by the Holy Spirit which is given to him through the 
appointments of the Lord. He prostrates himself at the 
golden altar and offers thereon the incense of an humble 
and devoted heart. Feeling his unworthiness, he pleads 
for mercy through Jesus Christ. Truly grateful for favors 
received, he humbly yet in faith asks his Father for bless- 
ings and protection in time to come. "Likewise the Spirit 
also helpeth our infirmities : for we know not what we 
should pray for as we ought : but the Spirit itself maketh 
intercession for us with groanings which can not be ut- 
tered." Rom. viii : 26. Thus God's children are "strength- 
ened with might by his Spirit in the inner man" .(Eph. iii : 
16) by the service of the Lord's day at the house of wor- 
ship. Oh, precious season of refreshing from the presence 
of the Lord ! Surely, it is good for them to be there, that 
55 



65O THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

they may sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 
and drink of that measure of the Holy Spirit with which 
God designed to comfort and strengthen His children 
amid the persecutions and trials incident to their pilgrim- 
age through life. But Jesus called the Holy Spirit a Com- 
forter, and truly it did comfort them. It not only dwelt in 
them, but it inspired men to write and speak words of 
cheer for them. It inspired Paul to write a graphic descrip- 
tion of their victory over death and subsequent reign with 
the Lord. He says : " The Lord himself shall descend 
from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, 
and with the trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall 
rise first : then we which are alive and remain shall be 
caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the 
Lord in the air : and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 
Wherefore comfort one another with these words." 1 
Thess. iv: 16-18. 

The Witness of the Spirit. 

After Paul had given the disciples at Rome positive 
assurance of the Spirit's presence in them, and that God 
would quicken their mortal bodies by it, he tells them that 
the measure of it received by them was the Spirit of 
adoption, by which they were authorized to call God their 
Father ; and in further confirmation of this, he said : " The 
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the 
children of God." Rom. viii : 16. The apostle here speaks 
of two witnesses, the Spirit itself and 02tr spirit, and these 
bear witness to the fact that certain characters are children 
of God. By the phrase Spirit itself we suppose we are to 
understand Paul to mean the Holy Spirit, and by our spirit 
we suppose he means the human spirit. Then, the Holy 
Spirit and the human spirit bear testimony with each other 
that the disciples are children of God. The passage is 



THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 65 1 

generally interpreted as though it read thus: "The Spirit 
itself beareth witness to our spirit that we are children 
of God." And though this makes the Holy Spirit the 
only witness, when we inquire of those who thus interpret 
the passage, for the testimony of the witness, they give us 
the testimony of their owii spirit, as though it were the 
only witness ; and thus the testimony of the Holy Spirit is 
virtually excluded. Is there not a want of consistency in 
this ? We have listened attentively to many persons when 
detailing the testimony upon which they predicated their ac- 
ceptance with God, and of that given by those who believe 
in the doctrine of abstract spiritual influences ; we remem- 
ber not a sentence that was not a statement of what they 
had felt, imagined, or dreamed. In vain have we listened 
for one word of testimony from the Holy Spirit — it is en- 
tirely excluded. That this is true may be seen in the fact 
that such persons are often in doubt upon the subject 
themselves; and surely they would not doubt the testimony 
of the Holy Spirit. One day their hopes are all bright, and 
they feel perfectly sure that they are children of God — the 
next day they are in Bunyan's " slough of despond," and 
singing, with plaintive voice, 

"'Tis a point I long to know; 
Oft it causes anxious thought ; 
Do I love the Lord or no ? 
Am I His, or am I not?" 

Indeed, doubts are their counterfeit detector, by which 
the wheat is separated from the chaff and a genuine con- 
version is recognized. He who has no doubts of his ac- 
ceptance with God is, with them, an egotistic, self-right- 
eous Pharisee, who is ignorant of " the work of grace in the 
soul." Those who thus doubt are not like those to whom 
Paul said : " Let us draw near with a true heart, in full 
assurance of faith." Heb. x : 22. They can only draw 



5^2 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

near to God in full assurance of faith occasionally, if at all. 
Their faith is not based upon testimony, but upon their 
feelings ; hence, when they draw near to God it must be 
in full assurance of feeling, and only occasionally at that. 
We do not object to good feelings ; they are proper in 
their place ; but when they constitute all the foundation 
of hope in Jesus, dark days will be sure to come. When 
the excitement of the protracted meeting passes away and 
the convert begins to grapple with the trials of life, the 
ardor of his feelings cools down, and we hear him sing : 

"Dear Lord, if indeed I am thine, 

If thou art my sun and my song, 
Say, why do I languish and pine, 

And why are my whiter s so long ? 
Oh, drive these dark clouds from my sky; 

Thy soul-cheering presence restore ; 
Lord, take me to thee up on high, 

Where winter and clouds are no more." 

Under such a state of mind, unless another protracted 
meeting should speedily drive the dark clouds away and 
renew the soul-cheering presence of the Lord, they are 
apt to imagine themselves deceived, and go back into sin, 
or seek another conversion by which the feelings of the 
former excitement may be temporarily renewed ; and thus 
they pass through life alternating between hope and 
despair. 

We do not know that we are pardoned because we feel 
good, but we feel good because we know we are pardoned. 
He who believes himself pardoned will feel like a pardoned 
man whether he be pardoned or condemned, for a false- 
hood believed will produce just the same feelings that 
would have been produced had it been true. When Jacob 
believed Joseph to be dead, he grieved and wept in all the 
anguish of soul that would have wrung his heart had the 
fact been really that way. He refused to be comforted, 



THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 6 s 3 

and confidently expected his gray hairs to go down to the 
grave in sorrow for what he believed to be the sad fate of his 
dear boy ; and it was with great difficulty that he was made 
to believe that Joseph was alive and governor of Egypt ; 
but when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to 
carry him to Egypt, he said : " It is enough : Joseph, my 
son, is yet alive ; I will go and see him before I die." Gen. 
xlv : 28. He felt like Joseph was dead when really he was 
alive and governor of Egypt. The Roman Catholic pays 
his money to the priest to absolve him from guilt, and dies 
rejoicing in the belief of the imposition as though it were 
really true ; and if good feelings are conclusive proof of 
pardon, then is he pardoned indeed, for doubtless he feels 
as much like he was pardoned as does any one else. 

Feelings may prove us sincere, but they alone can not 
prove the pardon of sin. It is a moral proposition and 
can not be proved by physical testimony. Our feelings 
may prove that which is wrought in us or done by us, but they 
can not prove that which is wrought in or done by another 
who is not visible to us. They may bear witness to the sin- 
cerity of our faith and repentance, because they are done 
by us ; they may bear witness to our change of heart, be- 
cause it is wrought in us ; but pardon of sin takes place 
in the mind of God, the party offended, as far from us as 
heaven is from the earth, and hence we can not attest the 
fact by our feelings. When we are hungry, thirsty, sleepy, 
sick, or in pain, we know the fact by our feelings, and no 
amount of moral testimony could convince us to the con- 
trary, for this character of testimony is not capable of prov- 
ing such a fact ; but the fact that Jesus died upon Calvary 
must be proved by moral testimony, and can not be proved 
by our feelings, any more than Jacob's feelings could prove 
that Joseph was slain by a wild beast. Sin is a moral 
evil, and its forgiveness can not be recognized by feelings, 



654 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

like the removal of disease from the body, but must be 
known by testimony coming from the party who forgives 
it. By way of illustrating the thought here presented, we 
beg permission to present the substantial features of an 
actual occurrence of the late war. A soldier of one of the 
armies, charged with a crime thought worthy of death, was 
tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be shot on a 
specified hour of a certain day. He had been a good sol- 
dier, and the commanding general determined to pardon 
him, and, without mentioning the fact to any one, he wrote 
out his reprieve early on the morning of the day set for 
his execution. The condemned man was placed in posi- 
tion, in the care of an officer and squad of soldiers charged 
with the execution of the order, and the whole army was 
marched out to witness his death. Within a minute or 
two of the time appointed for the man to die the reprieve 
was handed to the officer in charge, and was read to the 
prisoner, announcing his release. Then he had knowledge 
of his pardon, and for the first time felt like a pardoned 
man. Though pardoned early in the morning, his feelings 
gave him no evidence of the fact until the written com- 
munication came from the pardoning power in words 
adapted to his comprehension. Why did not his feelings 
assure him of his pardon as soon as it took place in the 
mind of the general ? Because feelings are not capable 
of bearing such testimony. Had pardon taken place in 
his own mind, then his feelings would have given him 
assurance of the fact. So the sinner is pardoned in the 
mind of God ; and though he may rejoice with joy unspeak- 
able and full of glory, he does it in full assurance of faith 
in the proclamation which contains the conditions of his 
pardon. 

But will this source of testimony relieve the question 
of pardon from the doubts which hang about it in the 



THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 



65 s 



minds of such as rely upon their feelings alone as the evi- 
dence of their acceptance with God ? We may know that 
our sins are pardoned with as much certainty as we may 
know that there is a God against whom we have sinned, a 
heaven awaiting the saints, a hell to be the abode of the 
damned, or that we have an immortal spirit within us. 

How do we know that there is a God ? " No man hath 
seen God at any time ; the only-begotten Son, which is in 
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John i: 
18), yet he is denominated a fool who "hath said in his 
heart, There is no God." Ps. xiv : 1 ; liii: 1. Testimony 
may be such as to produce a conviction in the mind that 
amounts to knowledge. We feel just as sure that there is 
such a place as New York or London, neither of which we 
have seen, as we do that there is such a place as Nash- 
ville, which we have seen ; then, if we may thus know from 
human testimony that there is such a place as New York, 
why may we not know from divine testimony that there is 
a heaven where God and angels dwell? John says: "If 
we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is 
greater." 1 John v : 9. But does this amount to knowl- 
edge ? Job says : " I know that my Redeemer liveth, and 
that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth ; and 
though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my 
flesh shall I see God." Job xix : 25, 26. How did Job 
know these things ? Peter said : " Let all the house of 
Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same 
Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." 
How were the Pentecostians to know this ? They could 
not see the Lord as did Stephen, but they must know it 
through the testimony which Peter presented to them. 
Paul says : " We know that, if our earthly house of this 
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a 
house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." 



656 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

2 Cor. v: 1. How could these Corinthians have known 
this ? Only through testimony ; yet it amounted to 
knowledge. John said : " We know that, when he appears, 
we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is." 
1 John iii : 2. How could the disciples to whom John 
wrote have known this ? Only through testimony ; yet 
they k?iew it. Then, if the Pentecostians could know 
from testimony that Jesus was crowned Lord in heaven ; 
if the Corinthians could knoiv that there was a building 
of God awaiting them in heaven after death ; if the disci- 
ples knew that they would be like Jesus Christ when He 
should appear, why may we not know otir sins forgiven 
by the same kind of testimony ? Luke says : " Forasmuch 
as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a dec- 
laration of those things which are most surely believed 
among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which 
from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of 
the word ; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect 
understanding of all things from the very first, to write 
unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou 
mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou 
hast been instructed." Luke i : 1-4. Then, we may assur- 
edly know the certainty of things from written testimony, 
especially when the Spirit of God guided the pen of the 
writer. Hence, John says: "These things have I written 
unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God ; 
that ye may know that ye have eternal life." 1 John v : 
13. Then, we may know ourselves heirs of eternal life by 
the things which inspired men have written. Jesus says : 
" I have given them the words which thou hast given me, 
and they have received them, and have known surely that 
I came out from thee." John xvii : 8. Here we not only 
learn that the words of Jesus were sufficient to let the 
apostles know assuredly that He came from God, but we 



THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 657 

also learn that the words spoken and written by them 
came from God through His Son to them ; hence, in these 
words we have the testimony of Jesus Christ and also of 
God Himself. What, then, is the testimony ? 

In the new covenant, which was dedicated with the 
blood of His Son, God said : " I will be merciful to their 
unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I 
remember no more." Heb. viii : 12. This covenant was 
the consummation of the promise which God gave to 
Abraham, "wherein God, willing more abundantly to show 
unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, 
confirmed it with an oath ; that by two immutable things, 
in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have 
strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold 
upon the hope set before us ; which hope we have as an 
anchor to the soul both sure and steadfast." Heb. vi : 17- 
19. Then, we have the promise of God, confirmed by His 
oath, that the sins of His people should be remembered 
no more. But on what conditions, if any, He would blot 
them from His memory is not here stated. 

Jesus was the mediator of this covenant — the surety of 
a better testament than the old ; hence, to Him we go for 
the terms of pardon under the testament of which He is 
Testator. He says : " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved." Markxvi:i6. Here we find that pardon 
is conditional, and the conditions are clearly set out. He 
further says : "The words that I speak unto you, they are 
spirit and they are life." John vi : 6$. We suppose this 
at least implies that the Spirit is ever present in His 
Word. In this conditional proclamation of pardon we 
have the presence of the Spirit, the word of Jesus Christ, 
and the oath of God the Father ; and they are all pledged 
for the pardon of him who believes and is baptized. 

But our spirit is also a witness that we are children of 



658 THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

God ; what testimony does it give ? The first condition in 
the proclamation requires us to believe ; but we may pro- 
fess to believe when we do not ; and if so, God is not 
mocked ; " it is with the heart man believeth unto right- 
eousness." Our faith must come from the great deep of 
our heart ; and though others may accuse us of hypocrisy, 
our own spirit bears us witness that we do believe. 
Hence, says John : " He that believeth on the Son of God 
hath the witness in himself." John v: 10. The witness 
of what ? that he is pardoned ? No ; that he does believe. 
Our spirit is competent to bear witness to the sincerity of 
our faith, for it is an act of our own ; and hence, no amount 
of testimony can convince us that we do not believe what 
our spirit tells us we do believe. 

But we must be baptized, for this is another condition 
of the proclamation. This, too, may be done from impure 
motives, and if so, it is worthless, for Paul says : "Ye have 
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was 
delivered you ; being then made free from sin." Rom. vi: 
17, 18. Here again our spirit testifies that we were bap- 
tized with a heart sincerely desirous of honoring God's 
authority in humble obedience to His will. Then, our 
spirit testifies that we do believe a.7id have been baptized, a?id 
the Holy Spirit testifies, in the words of Jesus, that we are 
saved, and God has confirmed it with His oath. 

Thus the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that 
we are children of God ; and now u believing ye rejoice with 
joy unspeakable and full of glory, receiving the end of your 
faith, even the salvation of your souls." 1 Pet. i; 8, 9. Yea, 
" the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believ- 
ing, that ye may abound in hope through the power of the 
Holy Ghost." Rom. xv : 13. Now, like the jailer, we 
" rejoice, believing in God." Acts xvi : 34. When the be- 
lieving eunuch was baptized, " he went on his way rejoic- 



THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 659 

ing." Acts viii : 39. These were wholly unlike the con- 
verts of modern times. They rejoiced in their salvation 
because they knew they had complied with the conditions 
of the proclamation. Now, ask that rejoicing convert why 
he feels happy, and he will tell you he is happy because he 
knows his sins are pardoned; ask him how he knows he is 
pardoned, and he will tell you he knows he is pardoned 
because he feels good. Thus he reasons in a circle, prov- 
ing his pardon by his feelings and his feelings by his 
pardon. 

Now, is there any room to doubt the pardon of a man 
who has thus complied with the conditions of the procla- 
mation ? None whatever. Can we doubt the word of 
Jesus and the oath of God ? Can you say, " Yes, I know 
I did believe, and I know I was baptized in good faith, and 
I know the Lord says, 'He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved,' but I am not sure He told the truth ; and 
I know, too, that God confirmed His promise by His oath, 
but I am in doubt still." Our pen trembles when we record 
even a supposition of such a thought in any human heart. 
Have we any stronger testimony that God is, and that He 
is the rewarder of them who diligently seek Him ? Have 
we any stronger evidence that there is a heaven to be the 
home of the righteous ? Is there any stronger proof that 
the wicked will be turned into hell with the nations that 
forget God ? Have we any stronger assurance that we 
have a soul to be saved or lost ? It occurs to us that he 
who will not believe it would not be persuaded though 
Jesus were on earth and should speak to him in person. 
We have His word, and it confirmed by the oath of His 
Father. What more could we have were He here to-day ? 
Many refused to believe on Him when He was among 
them confirming His word by miracles, which they saw 
with their own eyes ; and they would do so again were He 



66o THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION. 

here now ; but the responsibility is with them — not with 
Him — not with us. When all material things shall be 
wrapped in flame — nay, when they shall have passed 
away — His word will stand secure. 

We had many other thoughts which we were anxious to 
present, but we have already gone more than one hundred 
pages over our contemplated limits, and must lay down 
our pen, though we do it reluctantly. We feel that we 
have performed our work faithfully as far as we have gone, 
but we did not wish to leave our readers until we had 
shown them the road through "the gates into the city." 
Having told them how to become children of God, we were 
anxious to tell them how to live as Christians, that they 
might die in the Lord and enjoy the rest that remains for 
the people of God. We wanted to have gone with them 
to the house of worship on the Lord's day, where we 
might have taught and admonished each other in psalms, 
and hymns, and spiritual songs, making melody in our hearts 
to the Lord. We wanted to have surrounded the table of 
the Lord, and with them have partaken of the emblems of 
His broken body and shed blood, in commemoration of the 
great sin-offering made for the world. We wanted to have 
gone with them to the family altar, whence .their prayers 
might have ascended as sweet incense to the throne of the 
Most High. We wanted to have gone with them through 
the trials, temptations, and persecutions incident to their 
pilgrimage on the earth. We wanted to have seen them 
grapple with and overcome the last enemy when crossing 
the deep, rolling river. After sleeping in Jesus, we wanted 
to have seen them clad in the habiliments of immortality 
and basking in the radiant smiles of God's eternal love 
forever and ever. But all this, for want of room, we must 
leave for the work of another pen. 

Friendly sinner, we have labored for your interest in 



THE WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. gg j 

the preparation of this work under much physical pain, 
but God has spared us to its completion, for which we 
have earnestly prayed and feel devoutly thankful ; fur we 
feel assured that for every one we may be instrumental in 
turning to righteousness and guiding in the way of life 
eternal we will have a star placed in the crown of glory 
which will wreathe our brow in the presence-chamber of 
our God. You will read these pages when the hand that 
guides the pen with which they are written will have 
grown cold, and the heart that beats with anxious solici- 
tude for your salvation will have been stilled in death ; 
then, even then, though dead, may we yet speak through 
them some kind word that may feel about the tender chords 
of your heart and cause you to love God who first loved 
you, and Jesus Christ who died to redeem you, that you 
may flee from sin and lay hold upon eternal life. 

Jesus says, In my Father's house are many mansions ; 
if it were not so, I would have told you. He has gone 
to prepare a place for you, that where He is there you 
may be also. Oh ! do you not want to be with Jesus ? If 
so, He says, Come unto me, all ye that are weary, and I 
will give you rest. The Father says, Look unto me, all ye 
ends of the earth, and be ye saved ; for I am God, and be- 
sides Me there is none else. Then, God says, Come — Jesus 
says, Come — the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and 
whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life 
freely. Oh ! then, will you come ? 

"Come, all you who see yourselves lost, 
And feel yourselves burdened with sin ; 
Draw near, though with terror you're tossed ; 
Obey, and your peace shall begin. 
He, riches has ever in store, 
And treasures that never can waste ; 
Here's pardon, here's grace — yea, and more, 
Here 's glory eternal at last." 



INDEX 



Aaron's death, 19. 

Abraham's faith, 548. 

Abraham pardoned, when, 547. 

Abrahamic covenant, 409. 

Action of baptism— see What is bap- 
tism, 264. 

Acts viii: 37, genuine, 250. 

Acts ii : 38, argument on, 504. 

Adam's death, 19. 

Adam died literally, 127. 

Adam and predestination, 14. 

JEnan, a place for baptizing, 318. 

All flesh, spirit poured upon, 575. 

All bodies have spirits, 620. 
.Allegory— two covenants-, 437. 

Altar, Elijah's, baptized, 359. 

All things ordained of God, 8. 

Amad, Syriac for baptism, 305. 

Apostles not always under inspira- 
tion, 605. 

Apostasy proven possible, 27. 

Apo, the meaning of, 312. 

Apocryphal baptisms, 361. 

Apostles, when in the kingdom, 156. 

Arguments for sprinkling, etc., 356. 

Armor of the Christian, 612. 

Atonement, general, 34-39. 

Atonement and election, 34. 

Baptidzo, lexicons on, 267. 

critics on, 277. 

classic meaning of, 285-293. 
Baptism of Jesus, 312. 
Baptism a burial, 322-338. 
Baptism of the jailer, 346. 

of Paul, 349. 

of the Israelites, 350, 477, 530. 

of suffering, 353. 

of Jewish beds, vessels, etc., 362. 

the action— see What is baptism, 
264. 

of the eunuch, 342. 



Baptism of the altar, 359. 

of the Holy Spirit, 574. 

a work, therefore classed with 
works, 526. 

in room of circumcision, 428. 

history of the action, 366. 
Baptist, name of a church, 183. 
Baptized by one spirit, 580. 
Begotten and born, the difference, 201. 
Believers unpardoned, examples of, 

556." 
Believeth on the Son, hath life, etc. 

554. 
Beza on Baptidzo, 278. 
Birth of water— the action, 321. 

the design of, 489. 

theories on, 200. 
Born of water and Spirit— how, 203, 
Body of sins put off, 525. 
Body washed in baptism, 338. 
Branch churches, 168-172. 

when organized, 169. 

Calvinistic proofs examined, 50-91. 
Carson on bapto and baptidzo, 298. 
Calvin on baptidzo, 280. 

on change of baptism, 388. 
Christ died for all men, 34-39. 

for the elect only, 38. 
Christ's mission was to the lost, 44. 
Church established, when, 146-166. 
Church first composed of whom, 165. 

organized by inspired men, 610. 

the dwelling-place of the Holy 
Spirit, 610.. 

the medium of the Spirit's opera- 
tions, 611. 
Change of heart, what is it, and how 

effected, 221. 
Circumcision, examples of, 398. 

baptism in room of, 428. 

and baptism in force at once, 433. 
(66 3 ) 



664 



INDEX. 



Circumcised Jews baptized, 933. 
Circumstances uo part of conversion, 

634. 
Classic use of baptidzo, 285-293. 
Clark on foreknowledge, 106. 

onl Pet. iii: 21,529. 
Comforter not confined to the apos- 
tles, 638. 
Commission made void— infant bap- 
tism, 463. 

the action of baptism, 307. 

the subjects of baptism, 449. 

the design of baptism, 496. 
Confession, tbe good, 249-263 

wbat is it, 254. 

how made, 255. 

history of, 260. 
Confession, questions concerning, 259. 
Convertible terms, 319. 
Conscience in baptism, 463. 
Cornelius pardoned, when, 558. 
Covenants with Abraham, 410. 
Critics on baptidzo, seventy, 277. 

David at Keila, 11 . 

David's words were words of the Holy 

Spirit, 617. 
Decrees of God broken, 10. 
Dead body, washing from, 361. 
Depravity, hereditary, 109-145. 

proofs examined, 132. 

the origin of infant baptism, 468. 
Desert conversions by objectors, 516. 
Design of baptism, 479. 
Derivation of baptidzo— See Webster, 

Worcester, Liddell & Scott, Groves, 

etc., 266-268. 
Ditzler on Simon's case, 484. 

on Acts ii : 38, 507. 
Discipline on remission, 568. 
Diversity of spiritual gifts, 596. 
Divine nature, partakers of, how, 648. 
Doctrinal Tracts, Wesley's, 474. 
Doubts, the test of conversion, 651. 

no room for, 659. 
Dual character of mind, 124. 
Dumb spirit unreliable, 631. 

Ekklesia does not necessarily imply 

a religious assembly, 421. 
Election and reprobation, 15-108. 

of Isaac injured none others, 60. 

and the atonement, 34. 

and future judgment, 47. 



En an, a place for baptism, 318. 
Episcopalian Catechism, 492. 
Establishment of the church, 116-166. 
Eunuch's baptism, 342. 
Everlasting life, when possessed, 554. 
Ewing on depravity, 123. 
Examples of baptism, no infants, 454. 
Experience of grace examined, 624. 

Facts and testimony, sui generus, 653. 
Faith, chapter on, 209-233. 

office of, 220. 

what is it, 210. 

how does it come, 213. 

and repentance, order of, 242. 

differs not in kind, 219. 

Pollok on, 220. 

always a noun, 212. 

prayer for, 215. 

can not be demanded after recep- 
tion without it, 408. 

is a work, 526. 

only, justification by, 545. 

approved examples of, 546. 

perfected by obedience, 546. 

dead without works, 546. 

as a system, 548. 

imputed for righteousness, 550. 
Falling from grace, 28. 
Feelings not a test of right, 633. 

the office of, 652. 
Final perseverance, or apostasy— 

which, 2S. 
Figurative meanings of baptidzo, 297. 
Foreknew, predestinated, etc., 53. 
Foreknowledge of God, chapter on, 
92-108. 

Clark on, 106. 
Form of doctrine obeyed, 516. 
Full assurance of faith, 651. 

Gal. iii : 27, argument on, 519. 
Gentiles once not God's people, 46. 
Gifts of the Holy Spirit, 594. 

how conferred, 601. 

how ceased, and when, 602. 

are not its baptism, 595. 

are not the ordinary measure, 595. 
Glorified with Christ, who, 53. 
God grieved by man's wickedness, 13. 

willing to save all men, 42. 

no respecter of persons, 47. 
Good conscience— may not be par- 
doned man, 528. 



INDEX. 



665 



Greek Church baptizes only by im- 
niersion, 387. 

Hate, love less, 66. 
Heart, change of, 221. 

what is it, 22a 

changed by whom, 331. 
Heathens have no spiritual light, 631. 
Hearing of faith, 645. 
Henry on infant baptism, 405. 
Hereditary depravity, 109-145. 
Hezekiah's days prolonged, 11. 
History of baptism, the action, 366. 

of sprinkling, 379-392. 

of infant baptism, 464. 

of baptism for remission, 564. 
Holy Spirit, 571. 

baptism of, 574. 

gifts of, 594. 

operation of, 608. 

reception of, 636. 

how received, 644. 

witness of, 650. 

baptism a promise, 588. 

makes Christians, nothing else, 
621. 
How the gospel was taken to all na- 
tions, 598. 
Hughey on the classics, 296. 

Identity of the church, 167-188. 
Infants non-elect, 49.. 

damned by reprobation, 48. 
baptism— see Who should be bap- 
tized, 393-478. 
baptism, no precept for, nor ex- 
ample of, 394-397. 
mentioned in various connec- 
tions, 397. 
baptized because in and not in 

the church, 404. 
born in the church, yet must en- 
ter it, 406. 
not allowed the supper, 407. 
baptism carnalizes the church, 408. 
none in the church, 425. 
none baptized by John, 449. 
In Christ, new creatures, 519. 
Influence of circumstances, 633. 
Inspiration was progressive, 637. 
Injured, none by election, 48. 
Israel, a remnant of, 78. 
rest blinded, 79. 



Israel, reprobates saved, 79. 
Israelites baptized, how, 350. 

saved, when, 530. 

had infants with them, 476. 

Jacob and Esau, 61-66. 

Jacob felt like Joseph was dead, 652. 

Jailer's baptism, 346. 

conversion, 512. 
James and Paul on justification, 547. 
Jesus, baptism of, 312. 

entrance into heaven, 160. 

crowned King, 160. 
Jerusalem, water supplies in, 376. 
Jews, the election and fall of, 21-26. 

objected to the admission of the 
Gentiles, 58. 

rejected for unbelief, 59. 

had to be born again, 419. 
Jewish beds and vessels baptized, 362, 

proselyte baptism, 439. 
Jeter on infantile depravity, 115. 
John the Baptist never in the king- 
dom, 155. 

baptized no infants, 449. 
John's raiment, 318. 

baptism for remission of sins, 486. 

disciples not rebaptized, 489. 
John i : 12— His own, who were they, 
551. 

iii: 5, authoi's on— baptism, 490. 

iii: 15, 16, 18,36— believeth, etc., 553. 
Jordan, Lynch on, 315. 

Randall on, 317. 
Josephus, education of, 294. 
Judgment and election, 47. 
Judith's bathing in the fountain, 361. 
Justification, things connected with, 
545. 

Kingdom established, chapter on, 
146-166. 
meaning of, 146. 
established of whom, 165, 489. 
of God vs. the kingdom of Satan, 

611. 
visible and invisible, 536. 
Know that we are pardoned, 655. 

Last days— Joel, Isaiah, Mai., 576. 

will and testament, 632. 
Laws of pardon, two, 482. 
Law and gospel contrasted, 548. 
Learn to baptize infants, how, 403. 



666 



INDEX. 



Lexicons on baptidzo, 267. 

Liddell & Scott's Lexicon, 268. 

Line of separation between church 

and world obliterated, 462. 
Literal presence of the Spirit in 

Christians, 636. 
Luther on baptidzo, 280. 

on taufen, German for baptize,306. 

on putting on Christ, 520, 
Lynch on the Jordan, 315. 

Maccalla Debate, quotation from, 512. 
Man condemned, reprieved, 654. 
Mark xvi : 16, canonical, 497. 
Marriage, figure of, 196. 
McGarvey on Acts xiii: 48, 52. 
Measure applied to Spirit, 594. 
Men and women baptized, 397. 
Mercy to whom shown, 68. 

on whom He will have mercy, 67. 
Mind, dual nature of, 124. 
Miracles examined, 540. 

no part of conversion, 633 
Moral and physical testimony, 653. 
Moses, death of, 18. 

and the brazen serpent, 552 
Mortal bodies quickened by the Spirit, 



Nadab and Abihu destroyed, 19. 
Naaraan dipped himself, 339. 
Name Baptist, 183. 

church, etc., 421. 
Names, uuscriptural, 182. 
Natural calamities conditional, 12. 
Nebuchadnezzar's dream, 152. 
NeocaBsarean council, 380. 
New birth not a change of heart, 193. 

not a change of life, 194. 

chapter on, 189-208. 

a change of state, 196. 
Nicodemus understood not, why, 495. 
Nineveh's destruction averted, 12. 
Noah's salvation a type, 527. 
No efficacy in water, 562. 
None elect before conversion, 44. 
No spiritual qualifications to enter 

Jewish church, 408. 
Novatian baptized on his bed, 379. 

Office of faith, 220. 

of Spirit baptism, 581, 590. 
of Spiritual gifts, 606. 
of feelings, 652. 



Olive-tree, parable of, 422. 
One body only, 167. 

way only, 175. 

baptism only, 585. 
Ordained whatsoever comes to pass, 8. 

to eternal life believed, 51. 
Order of faith and repentance, 242. 
Oriental church always immerse, 387. 
Orthodoxy examined, 175-179. 

defined, 176. 
Operation of the Spirit, 608. 

none deny it, 609. 
Our spirits' testimony, 657. 

Parable of new and old wine, 418. 

of the sower, 617. 
Pardon may be known, 656. 
Paul's election, 50. 

conversion, 510. 
Paul, baptism of, 349. 

and James on faith, 547. 

not sent to baptize, 560. 
Persons saved not baptized in Spirit, 
589. 

commanded to be baptized, 588. 
Peter had the keys, 159. 
Pharaoh hardened, 68-71. 
Philip the evangelist not an apostle, 

603. 
Pictures of baptism, 314. 
Pious fathers all lost — objection, 570. 
Potter and the clay, 72-78. 
Predestination, chapter on, 7-14. 
Precious promises, 648. 
Presbyterian Confession of Faith on 

baptism, 569. 
Primitive and derivative words, 299. 
Providence, special and general, 635. 

Raiment, John's, 318. 
Reasoning in a circle, 659. 
Reception of the Holy Spirit, 636. 
Regeneration, not born again, 203. 
Religion of the Jews not Christian, 

424. 
Repentance, chapter on, 234-248. 

the gift of God, 240. 246. 

and faith, order of, 243. 
Reprobate infants, 43. 
Reprieve of a man condemned, 654. 
Respect of persons with God, 47. 
Restitution to be made, 239. 
Revival of modern type, 623. 



INDEX. 



66/ 



Romans ix examined, 57. 
Rules of exegesis, 300. 
Rupos, filth, 529. 

Sanctified and cleansed with wash- 
ing, etc., 524. 

Saul elected king and fell, 20. 

Saved added to the church, 509. 

Schleusner on baptidzo, 274. 

Seal of the covenants, 435. 

Sealed after believing, 642. 

Seven units, argument on, 521. 

Seventy critics on baptidzo, 277. 

Shifting ground on infant baptism, 
407,428. 

Signs followed belief, 599. 

Sins remembered every year, 414. 

Smith's Bible Dictionary on the birth 
of the church, 166. 

Special and general providence, 635. 

Speculations vs. the Word of God, 632. 

Spirits from God, 128. 

Spiritual power, miraculous limited, 
605. 

Spirit operates, how, 612. 

operated through Stephen's words, 

619. 
operates best through best reviv- 
alists, 627. 
of Satan operates through words. 
623. 

Sprinkling and pouring examined, 
356. 
first law for, 380. 

Stokius on baptidzo, 273. 

Stowe on Mark xvi : 16, 498 

Stuart on dying, 299. 

change of baptism, 388, 390. 
bapto and baptidzo, 280. 
difference in bapto and baptidzo, 
299. 

Suffering, baptism of, 353. 

Tabernacle of David, 424. 

Table of versions, 304. 

Tauf, tief, taufen— German, 306. 



Taval— Hebrew, lexicons on, 302. 

examples of, 301. 
The commission, 307, 449, 496. 

confession, 249, 263. 

new birth, chapter on, 189-208. 
Things forbidden come to pass, 9. 

never entered the mind of God, 13. 
Third parties— objection, 515. 
The witness of the Spirit, 650. 
Thief's case* 543. 
Tseva defined, 307. 
Two laws of pardon, 482. 
Types and shadows, 526. 

Universalism, 608. 

Union meeting of modern type, 621. 

Versions, table of, 304. 

Vessels of wrath, 74, 76. 

Visible and invisible kingdoms, 536. 

Wall on infantile depravity, 116. 
Watson on repentance, 246. 

on Col. ii : 12, 525. 

on 1 Pet. iii:21, 528. 
Washing of water by the word, 523. 

of regeneration, 525. 
Water and Spirit, one birth, 201. 

supplies in Jerusalem, 376. 
Way, but one, 174. 
Webster on baptism, 266. 
Wesley on 1 Pet. iii : 21, 528. 

on Acts xxii : 16, 511. 

on infantile depravity, 117. 
What is baptism— the action, 264-392. 

for— the design, 479. 
Who should be baptized— not infants, 

393-478. 
Wicked men insph'ed, 558. 
Wills are arranged during life, 495. 
Wind blowelh where it listeth, 206. 
With water— in watei*, 314. 
Witness of the Spirit, 650. 
Word of the Lord at Philippi, 514. 

of God enlightens, quickens, saves, 
etc., 630. 
World can not receive the Spirit, 611. 
Worcester on baptism. 266 



H. S. BOSVrORTH. D. W. CHASE. J. L'. uA.iU. 

PUBLICATIONS OF 

BOSWORTH, CHASE & HALL, 

CINCINNATI, O. 



We Supply Hymn Books, Hymnal, and all the Publications of the Christian Church. 

AGENTS WANTED. 

VALUABLE CHRISTIAN WORKS. 

LIFE OF ELDER WALTER SCOTT. 

With sketches of his fellow-laborers, William Hayden, Adamson Bentley, John Henry, 
and others, by William Baxter. The book contains a fine steel portrait, is printed ou 
tinted paper, has 45U pages, and bound in cloth. Sold by subscription only. Price.... $2 00 

THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION". 

By T. W. Brents. Crown, 12mo., 667 pages, cloth 2 50 

THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOS- 
PELS. 

An arsrument conducted on historical and critical grounds. ByB. A. Hinsdale, A. 31. 

12 mo., cloth 1 25 

A SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY 

SPIRIT. 

By R. Richardson. 12mo., 324 pages, cloth 1 50 

THE TEACHER, THE CLASS, AND THE BOOK. 

A Series of Fifty-two Sunday School Lessons, consisting in a Critical Analysis of the 

Scriptures, arranged from the Gospels consolidated. Ry W. B. Hendryx. 190 pages, 

18mo., half bound, 50 cents, 84. 80 per doz.; cloth, 75 cents ; per doz 7 20 

ROSE CARLTON'S REWARD. 

By Margaret Frances. A splendid gift book for young persons, ill'st., 283 pages 125 

RIVERSIDE ; 

Or, Winning a Soul. By Marie Radcliffe Butler. 174 pages. Illustrated 90 

ORTHOGRAPHY AND PRONUNCIATION. 

By Dr. Joseph Muenscher. 12mo., 210 pages 1 00 

DUKE CHRISTOPHER. 

A Story of the Reformation. By Mrs. Fanny H. Christopher. Cloth.. 50 

BARTHOLET MILON. 

A Sequel to Duke Christopher. Cloth 50 

GRANMA'S PATIENCE; 

Or, Mrs. James' Christmas Gift. Marie Radcliffe Butler. Cloth 50 

SHALL CHRISTIANS GO TO WAR? 

Discussion by Thomas Munnell and J. S. Sweeney. 248 pages, cloth, 16mo 1 00 

BRADEN AND HUGHEY DEBATE 

On the Action, Design, and Subjects of Baptism, Work of the Holy Spirit, etc., etc. 

687 pages, 8vo., cloth 2 75 

THE FAMILY COMPANION ; 

Or, a Book of Sermons on various subjects, both doctrinal and practical. Br Elijah 
Goodwin 1 75 

THE ORGANON OF SCRIPTURE ; 

Or, The Inductive Method of Biblical Interpretation. By J. S. Lamar. In this vol- 
ume a very important subject is discussed with great ability. Profound in thought, 
yet admirably adapted to the capacity of all readers. 12mo 1 50 



Sent by mail on receipt of price. 



Publications of Sosworth, Chase &. Ha!!, Cincinnati. 

COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OP THE APOSTLES. 

By Prof. J. W. McGarvey. 3U0 pages, 12ino., cloth 1 50 

THE CHRISTIAN SYSTEM. 

In reference to the union of Christians and the restoration of Primitive Christianity. 

By A. Campbell. Cloth, 12mo 1 50 

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

With its Antecedents and Consequents. By A. Campbell. Sheep, §1 50 ; half-bound, 1 25 
CAMPBELL AND PUECELL'S DEBATE 

On Roman Catholicism. A new edition of this very able discussion is ready. Cloth, 
12mo 1 50 

CAMPBELL AND OWEN'S DEBATE 

On all the Systems of Skepticism, Ancient and Modern. Complete in one volume. 
This will always remain a leading work ou the evidences of Christianity 1 75 

FAMILIAR LECTURES ON THE PENTATEUCH. 

Delivered before the Morning Class of Bethany College, during the Session of 1859-fiu, 
by Alexander Campbell; also short extracts from his sermons during the same ses- 
sion ; to which is prefixed a sketch of the life of President Campbell, with a fine steel 
portrait. Edited by W.T.Moore 1 75 

MEMOIRS OF ELDER THOMAS CAMPBELL. 

By Alexander Campbell. Cloth, 12mo 1 25 

WORKS OF ALEXANDER CAMPBELL.. 

New library edition, on fine paper. Six volumes: Christian System, Debate with 
Owen, Catholicism, Baptism. Life of Thomas Campbell, Pentateuch. Uniform in 
size, style, and binding ; superior to any other edition for those who desire the 
writings of President Campbell in a dress worthy of the author. Price, in cloth, 
beveled, net 7 50 

THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST. 

This importaut work can not be superseded by any subsequent publications. Seven 
volumes in one, containing 6S0 double-columned pages. By A. Campbell. New edi- 
tion. Price, in cloth, $3 ; arabesque 3 50 

A TREATISE ON PRAYER. 

Dedicated to the Christian Churches in America. By R. Milligan, President of the 
College of the Bible in Kentucky University. Beautifully printed on fine paper, and 

bound in fine cloth, vermilion edges 50 

THE MESSIAHSHIP ; 

Or, Great Demonstration. Written for the union of Christians on Christian princi- 
ples. By Walter Scott 1 50 

LIVING ORACLES. 

The Sacred writings of the Apostles and Evangelists, translated from the original 
Greek, by Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, with preface, emendations, and 
an appendix by Alexander Campbell. Pocket edition, bound in cloth 50 

CHRISTIAN CHURCH REGISTER. 

With various special rulings and printed headings. Arranged by Eld. II. Moffett. 
Crown cap (9x14 inches). 160, 320, aud 480 pages. Price 3 0u, 5 00, 7 50 

CHURCH CONTRIBUTION RECORD. 

With special rulings and printed headings, for keeping account of weekly contribu- 
tions. 40 pages, $1 10; 80 pages 1 50 

CHRISTIAN SUNDAY-SCHOOL LIBRARY. 

New Edition, with New Illustrations. Edited by Elder D. S. Burnet. 50 books in 40 
vols., cloth, price 12 00 

CHRISTIAN SUNDAY-SCHOOL HYMN BOOK. 

Designed for Sundav -schools and Families. 136 pages, 32 mo., half-bound, per doz., 

$1 50; cloth, per doz 2 40 

In ordering give Post-office, County, and State in each letter. Remit by Money Order, Reg. 
ister Letter, or Bank Draft at our risk. Letters of inquiry receive prompt attention. 

ADDRESS, 

BOS WORTH, CHASE & HALL, Publishers, 

CINCINNATI. 
Sent by mail on receipt of price. 



Publications of Bosworth, Chase & Hall, Cincinnati. 



CHRISTIAN TRACTS 

AND 

SMALL BOOKS IN NEAT PAPER COVERS VALUABLE FOR CIRCULATION. 

WOMAN'S WORK IN THE CHURCH. 

By W. T. Moore .. fO ( 

THE MISSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

By John W. Randall „ II 

THE EVILS OF INTEMPERANCE. 

A Tract. By Charles P. Evans m 10 

THE TRUE BASIS OF CHRISTIAN UNION. 

By Isaac Errett 10 

GRACE AND GOOD WORKS; 

Or, of the Divine and Human Agency in the work of Human Redemption. By R. 

Milligan, President of the College of the Bible in Kentucky University 10 

FIRST PRINCIPLES; 

Or, The Elements of the Gospel. Analyzed and discussed in letters to an inquirer. 

By Isaac Errett. 159 pages 15 

A BRIEF TREATISE ON PRAYER. 

By R. Milligan 10 

PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTS 

Of the Religious Reformation, as plead by A. Campbell and others. By R. Richardson 1C 
This statement of the "Principles and Objects" of the Reformation is written in good 
taste and style; is brief, yet covers the whole ground. This 6hould be freely circula- 
ted. 

SALVATION FROM SIN ; 

Or, What Must I Do to be Saved? By Dr. J. P. Walsh 10 

The topics treated are Faith, Repentance, Confession, Calling on the Name of the Lord, 
Baptism, and Salvation. 

"LIFE AND DEATH." 

A Refutation of Materialism and Modern Sadduceeism 19 

CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE ; 

Or, Sincerity Seeking the Way to Heaven. A Dialogue ..... 

THE UNION MOVEMENT. 

A Dialogue, showing the only possible ground of Christian union 10 

TRUE METHOD OF SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. 

By President Fanning. Paper, 15 cents; cloth .. 50 

M'LEAN ON THE COMMISSION 

Of Christ and His Apostles. Paper „ » 

BIX LETTERS TO A SKEPTIC. 

By A. Campbell. 57 pages 6 

SPIRITUALISM SELF-CONDEMNED. 

By Isaac Errett. A very valuable tract, with neat cover f> 

CHRIST'S CHURCH IDENTIFIED. 

By Elder A. Raines. Cloth M 

B ADICALISM and CONSERVATISM. 

Tieir influence on the Development of a true Civilization. By W. T. Moore ^~ M 

G®~ Sent by mail, prepaid, on receipt of price. 



Publications of Bosworth, Chase &. Hall, Cincinnati 



OUB STRENGTH AND OUR WEAKNESS. 

By \V. T. Moore » H 

THE PASTORATE. 

By D. S. Burnet II 

HEATHEN TESTIMONIES 

To the Antiquity and Truthfulness of the Old Testament. By T. Munnell. Per dos. 75 

SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE 

Of Justification by Faith. By J. R.Swift. Per dozen 75 

THE POVERTY OF JESUS, 

The Wealth of the Saiuts. By D. S. Burnet. Each, 10 cents. Per dozen 75 

DUTY OF CHRISTIANS 

To Civil Government. By Dr. S. E. Shepard. Per dozen ?l 

LIFE AND PUBLIC CAREER 

Of A. Campbell. Paper, 12mo. With fine steel portrait 30 

MORRIS LETTERS. 

Seven reasons given for not being a Methodist. 189 pages, cloth ■ ■ 41 

THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 

Written for the recovery of the Church from sects. By Walter Scott. 132 pages .. 25 

THE ELDERSHIP. 

By J. W. McGarvey .. 10 

REPLY TO A BAPTIST 

On the Design of Baptism. By M. E. Lard 10 

BIBLE vs. MATERIALISM. 

By William M. Roe. In which the errors and sophisms of modern Materialists ara 
detected and fully exposed, and the true teaching of the Bible exhibited 30 

HOLMAN'S TRACTS. 

Assorted or otherwise. S00 pages for SI. 00. 1,000 pages t 25 

TESTIMONY OF ONE HUNDRED WITNESSES. 

A Tract on Universalism. 16 pages. Per dozen 25 

THE EVIDENCES OF PARDON. 

A Tract of 12 pages, 12mo. Per dozen 25 

THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL. 

A Tract. By John Aug. Williams. 16 pages, 16mo. Per dozen >5 

THE LOGIC OF INFIDELITY. 

A Tract of 8 pages. Per hundred 1 iiO 

A FEW WORDS ABOUT BOOKS. 

A Tract of S pages. Per hundred I 00 

THE PLAN OF SALVATION. 

By Isaac Errett It 

THE CONNECTION 

Between Baptism and Remission of inns. Historically considered. By W. K. Psn- 
dieton „ „ 10 

THE CHURCH OF THE FUTURE. 

By \V. T. Moore M 

Other Tracts from the ablest pens in the Reformation, ii. course of preparation, and will tt 
Tom time to time. 

Orders solicited. Letters oj inquiry will have our immediate attention. 
Address, 

SOSrrOftTtf, CHASE & JJALZ, Cincinnati, Ohio. 



Sent by mail, prepaid, on receipt of price. 



Publications of Bosworth, Chase & Hall, Cincinnati. 



THE CHRISTIAN HYMH-BOOK. 

SMALL EDITION. (Pearl, 48mo.) 

Sheer „ each .50; by the dozen, each copy .40 

Arabesque 

Arabesque, gilt back and burnished edge f. 

Arabesque, gilt edge 

Imitation Turkey, gilt edge 

Turkey Morocco, gilt edge 

Turkey, with gilt clasp 

MEDIUM EDITION. (Brevi 

Sheep Binding each 

Arabesque 

Arabesque, gilt back and burnished edge 

Arabesque, gilt edge 

Imitation Turkey, gilt edge 

Turkey Morocco, gilt edge 

Turkey, with gilt clasp 

Turkey, flexible 

Turkey pure flexible 

Turkey, heavy beveled 

A 1 Turkey, London antique, assorted colors, elegantly 

blind-tooled 

*' 2 Turkey, London antique, assorted colors, elegantly 

blind-tooled, clasp 

** 3 Turkey, London antique, full gilt 

" 4 " " " and clasp 

" 5 " " " super extra _ 

" 6 " " " with clasp 

Silk Velvet, rims and clasp, full ornaments „ 

LARGE EDITION. (Pica, 12mo.) 

Sheep Binding each 2.00; by the dozen, each copy 1.60 

Arabesque " 2.50 " " 2.C0 

Turkey Moi-occo. beveled, antique, gilt edge " 4.00 " " 3.20 

" " " extra gilt " 4.50 " " 3.00 



.60 






" 


.4? 


.75 




" 


44 . 


f* 


.90 




" 


" 


.78 


1.10 




" 


" 


.83 


1.35 




" 


" 


1.08 


2.00 




! * 


" 


1.60 


24mo.) 








i .75; 


by the dozen, each copy .60 


1.00 




" 


44 


.80 


1.15 




" 


" 


.92 


1.40 




" 


4< 


1.12 


1.60 




" 


44 


1.2s 


2.00 




" 


M 


1.6(i 


2.75 




" 


H 


2.20 


2.50 




" 


'« 


2.0(1 


3.00 




<« 


ft 


2,40 


4.00 




" 


it 


3.2(1 


3.50 




» 


" 


2.80 


4.00 




«. 


» 


3.2rt 


4.00 




" 


" 


3.20 


4.50 




" 


" 


3.60 


3.25 




" 


44 


2.60 


3.75 




" 


" 


3.00 


6.60 




'• 


44 


5.25 



THE CHRISTIAN HYMNAL. 



A choice collection of Hymns and Tunes for Congregational and Social Worship. Ar- 
ranged by a Committee of Harmonists and Musical Authors, under the direction oi 
the Christian Hymn-Book Committee, and published by authority ol the Trustees. 
12m©. 844 Hymns, 378 Tunes, 340 pages. Elegantly bound in cloth ; \ or million edges... 100 

English cloth, per copy, S1.00; per dozen 10 80 

" beveled boards, gilt side, vermillion edge, per copy, $1.25 ; per dozen 13 50 

Turkey Morocco, gilt, per copy 3 25 

44 Antique, extra beveled, full gilt, per copy 3 75 

Sent by mail, prepaid, at the retail price. 

Address— 

^ ^ BOSV#ORTH, CHASE & HALL, Publishers, 

180 Elm Street, Cincinnati. 



______ 



Sent by mail on receipt of retail price. 




a\* <* *'• Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process . 

<^ V c o " • * <S>. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

* ° ^ /^Xh<* ^ Treatment Date: August 2005 




i PreservationTechnologies 

> ^ UoRLOLEAOER.N PAPER PRESERVAT.ON 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2ir, 



r 







fr.% 






